Barr v. AAPC Lacked Jurisdiction Over TCPA Claims

In Stacy Creasy, et al. v. Constitution Communications, Inc., No. CV 20-1199, 2020 WL 5761117 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2020) (Creasy), a putative class motion, the plaintiffs accused defendant Constitution Communications, Inc. of repeatedly violating § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Phone Shopper Safety Act (“TCPA”) which prohibits virtually all phone calls to cell telephones utilizing an automatic phone dialing system (“ATDS”). Making use of the US Supreme Courtroom’s determination in Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants (Barr), 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), that the government-backed debt exception to the TCPA rendered the autodialer ban an unconstitutional restriction of free speech, the courtroom dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on the idea that the courtroom lacked subject material jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s TCPA claims arising out of calls made previous to the July 6, 2020 opinion in Barr.

By means of background, in 2015, Congress amended § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA’s normal autodialer restriction to allow calls made to gather money owed owed to or assured by the federal authorities, creating the “government-debt exception.”

On July 6, 2020, the US Supreme Courtroom struck down the “government-debt exception” on the idea the exception rendered the TCPA’s autodialer restriction an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech, and severed it from the remainder of the statute. See Barr,140 S. Ct. at 2353 – 2354.

In Creasy, Constitution Communications moved to dismiss the grievance on the idea that the Supreme Courtroom’s determination in Barr primarily amounted to a dedication that the whole thing of § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) was unconstitutional from the second Congress enacted it. The plaintiffs took the other stance, arguing that by severing the federal government debt exception to protect the rest of the statute, the Supreme Courtroom confirmed that § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) was constitutional from the get go.

The Creasy Courtroom adopted Constitution Communications’ logic. The courtroom held that, “whereas the plaintiffs argue that the Courtroom’s severance of the exception has no bearing on the constitutionality of the rule, the exception and the rule are in truth inextricably intertwined for the needs of any cheap evaluation.” The courtroom additionally famous that “[i]n the years previous Congress’s 2015 addition of the government-backed exception § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) didn’t discriminate on the content material of autodialed calls, and was, because the Supreme Courtroom has noticed, a constitutional time-place-manner restriction on speech. Likewise, now that [Barr] has executed away with the offending exception, § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) figures to stay good regulation within the years to come back.” Nevertheless, for the 5 years through which § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) permitted autodialed calls government-debt assortment whereas prohibiting autodialer calls of all different classes of content material, the courtroom held that the entirety of the supply was unconstitutional.

In Creasy, all however one of many 130 alleged autodialed calls and textual content messages fell inside the five-year interval that the government-backed debt exception was intact however – in line with its reasoning – unconstitutional. Because of this, the Creasy Courtroom agreed that it lacked subject material jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of such communications as a result of federal courts lack authority to implement violations of unconstitutional legal guidelines. It granted Constitution Communications’ movement to dismiss with respect to all asserted TCPA violations that occurred earlier than July 6, 2020.