U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Ban on Robocalls to Cell Phones

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The exception of robocalls for debt collection by the government was held to be unlawful. It decided to sever this exception from the rest of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 1991. It held the exception violates the First Amendment Rights. Justice Kavanaugh gave the majority judgement, 6-3.

Background

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 1991 (TCPA) prohibits automated calls to cellphones. In 2015 the congress added a new exception to this Act. The Act permitted Robocalls for collection of government-backed debts. This exception carved out content-based speech restriction. The American Association of Political Consultants and three other agencies filed a suit. The District Court held that this clause would survive the strict scrutiny. The government’s compelling interest in the collection of the debts. The Fourth Circuit held that the law could not withstand the strict scrutiny. The Court invalidates the government- debt exception. It applied the severability and severed the exception to the robocalls restriction.

Arguments

The political organization wanted to make automated political robocalls. However, the TCPA barred them from doing so. The consultants made the argument of violation of First Amendment speech rights. They won the argument but did not achieve any practical result in their favour. The Court invalidated the exception, but the political robocalls were still illegal. The consultants argued that this exception is ‘content-based’. The robocalls based on the government-debt collection are valid. But political robocalls are unlawful. This violates the First Amendment Rights, depending on the content being expressed. The Act favours the government over others. The consultants argued for the ‘strict scrutiny’ review of the law. Their main contention was the striking down of the entire Act.

Court’s opinion

The main question before the Court was a violation of First Amendment Rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained the following. That content-based law from the decision of Reed v Town of Gilbert. Regulation of speech based on the speaker conveys is content-based law. It requires the speaker to have a specific matter. He held that the government has no right to restrict expression based on the subject matter. This would lead to differential treatment, which violates the First Amendment Speech Rights. The Court held that the TCPA functioned well until the addition of the exception to the Act. The severability of this clause from the Act would do justice. Thus, it held that the consultants’ argument of the entire Act is unconstitutional to be invalid.

The government argued that the statute is content-neutral. However, the Court held this to be unpersuasive. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed the following. That there is no reason why a private debt call is more intrusive than a government-debt call. This invalidated the government’s argument—the argument of no harassment committed to the people through robocalls. Justice Ruth and Kagan disagreed that this violates the First Amendment Rights. They agreed to the majority opinion of severability of the exception.

Court’s Decision

The Court’s decision was a landmark judgement. This is because it has a significant impact on the 2020 elections. The Court avoided prying into that aspect. The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit decision to severe the exception from the Act. The exception was held to violate the First Amendment Rights Of speech.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -