Supreme Court Upholds Cellphone Robocall Ban
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a 1991 law that bars robocalls to cellphones.
The case, argued by telephone in May because of the coronavirus pandemic, stems from a 2015 decision by Congress to carve out an exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Act generally prohibits robocalls to cellphones and home phones, but the 2015 amendment allowed robocalls to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government, including to collect student loan and mortgage debts.
Political consultants and pollsters were among those asking the justices to strike down the 1991 law that bars them from making robocalls to cellphones as a violation of their free speech rights under the Constitution.
The issue was whether, by allowing one kind of speech but not others, the exception made the whole law unconstitutional. Six justices concluded it did.
The ruling written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh throws out the exception for government-debt collection, but preserved the broader prohibition.
“As a result, plaintiffs still may not make political robocalls to cellphones, but their speech is now treated equally with debt-collection speech,” Kavanaugh wrote.
He concluded: “Congress created a general restriction on robocalls to cellphones but carved out an exception. That exception is unconstitutional; the court fixed the problem by separating it from the rest of the statute, so now all robocalls are unconstitutional again.”
There are now five decisions to go before the justices wrap up their pandemic-extended term. Two regard subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records, two focus on the religion clauses of the Constitution, and one could determine whether much of eastern Oklahoma is a Native American reservation.
In The News
WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Collier says that during the seven years he worked as an operating room aide at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, white nurses called him and other Black employees "boy." Management ignored two large swastikas painted on a storage room wall. And for... Read More
(This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series. The first three parts can be read here, here and here.) The First Amendment Prevails The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case, officially, New York Times Co. v. United States, affirmed historical precedents... Read More
(This is the second part of a four-part series. The first installment can be read here.) To Publish or Not to Publish Upon his return to Washington, Sheehan and an editor booked a room at the Jefferson Hotel, where they spent weeks reading and summarizing the... Read More
The battle was joined on a Monday night. It was shortly after 7 p.m. on June 14, 1971, when a seething President Richard Nixon telephoned his attorney general, John Mitchell, and told him it was time to make the administration’s position clear to The New York... Read More
WASHINGTON -- A California law that requires nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors met with skepticism among most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices during a hearing Monday. The law is opposed by coalitions of nonprofit organizations that say the disclosures could dry up their contributions... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — After more than a decade in which the Supreme Court moved gradually toward more leniency for minors convicted of murder, the justices on Thursday moved the other way.The high court ruled 6-3 along liberal-conservative lines against a Mississippi inmate sentenced to life in... Read More