In a much-anticipated Supreme Court docket resolution, Barr v. American Affiliation of Political Consultants, positive to affect the way forward for the Phone Shopper Safety Act (“TCPA”), the Court docket addressed the problem of whether or not the government-debt exception to the TCPA’s automated-call restriction violates the First Modification, and whether or not the right treatment for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the rest of the statute.
The Supreme Court docket concluded that Congress impermissibly favored government-debt assortment speech over political and different speech, in violation of the First Modification, and thus should invalidate the government-debt assortment exception of the TCPA, and sever it from the rest of the statute. Regardless of issues that the Court docket would tackle the constitutionality of the TCPA in its entirety, the Court docket left untouched the TCPA’s basic restriction on calls made with an “computerized phone dialing system” (“ATDS”).
Making use of conventional severability ideas, seven Members of the Court docket conclude that your entire 1991 robocall restriction shouldn’t be invalidated, however fairly that the 2015 government-debt exception should be invalidated and severed from the rest of the statute. . . . Because of this, plaintiffs nonetheless could not make political robocalls to cell telephones, however their speech is now handled equally with debt-collection speech.
Addressing the choice to go away the rest of the TCPA intact, the Court docket highlighted the “regular rule”, launched in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Firm Accounting Oversight Bd., the place the Court docket concluded that, “Usually talking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we attempt to restrict the answer to the issue, severing any problematic parts whereas leaving the rest intact.”
This isn’t the primary time, of late, that the Supreme Court docket has been petitioned to deal with the constitutionality of the TCPA. Again in October of 2019, the Court docket was petitioned to evaluation the next points: 1) whether or not the TCPA’s prohibition on calls made by ATDS is an unconstitutional restriction of speech, and in that case whether or not the right treatment is to broaden the prohibition to abridge extra speech, and a couple of) whether or not the definition of “ATDS” within the TCPA encompasses any system that may “retailer” and “mechanically dial” phone numbers, even when the system doesn’t “us[e] a random or sequential quantity generator.” The Court docket has nonetheless not introduced whether or not it can settle for this petition.
Whereas the affect of the Supreme Court docket’s resolution on the TCPA is restricted, provided that solely the government-debt exception was severed, it nonetheless gives higher certainty and readability for organizations going through TCPA litigation.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020Nationwide Legislation Overview, Quantity X, Quantity 199