## Facts

- Indiana enacted the Indiana Telephone Privacy Act (Ind. Code § 24-4.7 et seq.), creating a statewide do-not-call list for residential subscribers.
- The Act broadly covered “telephone solicitors,” including callers seeking charitable contributions.
- The Act permitted calls on behalf of federally tax-exempt charities to numbers on the do-not-call list only when made by the charities’ employees or volunteers who promptly disclosed their names and contact information.
- The plaintiff charitable organizations relied heavily on professional, for-profit telemarketing firms to solicit donations, including from households that registered on the do-not-call list.
- The charities contended the employee/volunteer limitation materially reduced the effectiveness and efficiency of their fundraising communications.
- The charities filed a federal action seeking declaratory relief that the Act, as applied to their charitable solicitation calls, violated the First Amendment and equal protection principles.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Indiana Attorney General and upheld the Act; the charities appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits Indiana to restrict charitable organizations from using professional telemarketers to call residential numbers placed on the state do-not-call list while allowing calls by the charities’ employees or volunteers with required disclosures.
2. Whether the Act’s distinction between professional telemarketers and employees/volunteers, or its treatment of charitable solicitation within the do-not-call regime, constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under the First Amendment or equal protection theories.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the State.
- The court held the Act’s limitation on the use of professional telemarketers to call do-not-call registrants on behalf of charities was constitutional.
- The court treated the statute as regulating the manner/means of reaching residents who affirmatively opted out of solicitation calls, not as a ban on charitable speech or a viewpoint-based restriction.
- The court found Indiana’s interest in protecting residential privacy from unwanted and intrusive calls was substantial.
- The court concluded the restriction was sufficiently tailored because charities could still reach do-not-call registrants through employees or volunteers with immediate identification and contact disclosures.
- The court rejected the argument that the First Amendment guarantees charities the most effective or least costly fundraising method.

## Legal Principles

- Charitable solicitation is protected by the First Amendment, but it may be subject to reasonable regulation directed at substantial governmental interests such as residential privacy.
- A state may regulate the manner of telephone solicitation to reduce unwanted intrusions, particularly where residents have taken an affirmative opt-out step (do-not-call registration).
- A restriction is not unconstitutional merely because it makes fundraising less efficient or more expensive, so long as adequate alternative channels for communication remain available.
- Differentiating between professional telemarketers and an organization’s employees/volunteers may be justified where the distinction is tied to limiting the most intrusive or high-volume calling practices rather than suppressing a message.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Indiana’s do-not-call statute as applied to charitable solicitation, concluding that limiting calls to do-not-call registrants to identified employees or volunteers (and excluding professional telemarketers) permissibly advanced residential privacy while leaving charities meaningful avenues to communicate.


Nat’l Coal. of Prayer, Inc. v. Carter, 455 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2006)