Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

2 

BARR v. AMERICAN ASSN. OF POLITICAL  
CONSULTANTS, INC. 
Opinion of BREYER, J. 

U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii)).  The Act delegates authority to 
the Federal Communications Commission to make certain 
additional exceptions from that general cell phone robocall 
restriction.  §227(b)(2)(C).

More than 20 years later, Congress enacted another stat-
ute, which created the government-debt exception.  The Of-
fice of Management and Budget had reported to Congress
that in “this time of fiscal constraint . . . the Federal Gov-
ernment  should  ensure  that  all  debt  owed  to  the  United 
States  is  collected  as  quickly  and  efficiently  as  possible.”
Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, 
Budget of the U. S. Government, Fiscal Year 2016, p. 128
(2015), 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-
It  recommended 
2016-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2016-PER.pdf. 
that Congress permit “the use of automatic dialing systems
and  prerecorded  voice  messages”  to  contact  “wireless 
phones in the collection of debt owed to or granted [sic] by
the United States.”  Ibid. 

Congress  adopted  that  recommendation.  It  enacted  a 
provision that excepts from the general cell phone robocall
restriction any call “made solely to collect a debt owed to or
guaranteed by the United States.”  129 Stat. 588; see also 
ibid.  (categorizing  the  exception  as  a  “debt  collection  im-
provemen[t]” measure).  The question here is whether the
First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from
enacting that government-debt collection measure. 

II 
The  plurality  finds  the  government-debt  exception  un-
constitutional primarily by applying a logical syllogism: (1) 
“Content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny.”  Ante, at 
6  (citing  Reed  v.  Town  of  Gilbert,  576  U. S.  155,  163–164 
(2015)).  (2) The exception is based on “content.”  Ante, at 7. 
(3) Hence, the exception is subject to “strict scrutiny.”  Ante, 
at 9.  (4) And the Government concedes that the exception
cannot survive “strict scrutiny” examination.  Ibid.