Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued May 6, 2020 Decided July 6, 2020 | |
Full case name | William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al., v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. |
Docket no. | 19-631 |
Citations | 591 U.S. ___ (more) 140 S. Ct. 2335; 207 L. Ed. 2d 784 |
Case history | |
Prior | |
Holding | |
The 2015 government-debt exception of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 violates the First Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Alito; Thomas (Parts I and II) |
Concurrence | Sotomayor (in judgment) |
Concur/dissent | Breyer (concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part), joined by Ginsburg, Kagan |
Concur/dissent | Gorsuch (concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part), joined by Thomas (Part II) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Amend. I Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 |
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment.[1]