## Facts

- The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) generally prohibited using autodialers or prerecorded messages to call cell phones without the called party’s prior consent.
- In 2015, Congress added an exception allowing robocalls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.
- Political and nonprofit organizations that sought to place political robocalls to cell phones challenged the statute, arguing the government-debt exception favored debt-collection speech over political speech.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and argued the proper remedy was to invalidate the entire robocall restriction so political robocalls could be made lawfully.
- The district court upheld the amended restriction, concluding it was content-based but survived strict scrutiny based on the government’s interest in collecting debt.
- The Fourth Circuit held the government-debt exception unconstitutional under the First Amendment and severed the exception while leaving the general robocall ban in place.

## Issues

1. Whether the TCPA’s 2015 government-debt exception is an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment.
2. If unconstitutional, whether the proper remedy is to sever the government-debt exception or invalidate the entire robocall ban applicable to cell phones.

## Decision

- The Court held that the government-debt exception is facially content-based because legality turns on the call’s subject matter (government-debt collection versus other topics, including political speech).
- Applying strict scrutiny, the Court concluded the exception was not justified by a compelling interest in a narrowly tailored manner and therefore violated the First Amendment.
- The Court held the unconstitutional exception was severable from the remainder of the TCPA provision.
- The Court affirmed the judgment leaving the longstanding general robocall ban in force while invalidating the 2015 government-debt exception.

## Legal Principles

- A law that draws distinctions on its face based on the message conveyed is content-based and ordinarily triggers strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
- A content-based speech restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest; otherwise it is unconstitutional.
- When a discrete statutory provision is unconstitutional, courts generally preserve the remainder if it can function independently and legislative intent favors preservation, especially where a severability clause exists.
- Severability analysis focuses on limiting the remedy to the constitutional defect and asks whether the legislature would have preferred the statute without the invalid provision to no statute at all.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the TCPA’s government-debt exception as unconstitutional content discrimination and severed that exception, leaving intact the general prohibition on robocalls to cell phones made with autodialers or prerecorded messages absent consent.


Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020)