Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 44

2 

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

New  weapons  in  the  fight  against  robocallers  have
emerged, too—including tools that allow consumers to more 
easily screen and block unwanted calls.  Perhaps in recog-
nition of these changes, Congress relaxed the ban on cell-
phone robocallers in 2015.  Today, unsolicited calls are per-
mitted if they are “made solely to collect a debt owed to or 
guaranteed by the United States.” 

That leaves robocallers no shortage of material.  The gov-
ernment  backs  millions  upon  millions  of  loans—student 
loans,  home  mortgages,  veterans’  loans,  farm  loans,  busi-
ness loans.  When it comes to student loans alone, the gov-
ernment guarantees more than $150 billion in private loans 
involving over 7 million individuals.  And, to be clear, it’s 
not just the government that’s allowed to call about these 
loans.  Private lenders and debt collectors are free to send 
in the robots too, so long as the debt at issue is ultimately
guaranteed by the government. 

Today’s plaintiffs wish to use robocalls for something dif-
ferent:  to  campaign  and  solicit  donations  for  political 
causes.  The plaintiffs allege that the law’s continuing ban 
on  calls  like  theirs  violates  the  First  Amendment,  and on 
the main points of their argument the parties agree.  First, 
no one doubts the TCPA regulates speech.  Second, every-
one accepts that restrictions on speech—no matter how ev-
enhanded—must be justified by at least a “ ‘significant gov-
ernmental  interest.’ ”    Ward  v.  Rock  Against  Racism,  491 
U. S.  781,  791  (1989).    And,  third,  the  parties  agree  that 
laws  that  go  further  by  regulating  speech  on  the  basis  of
content invite still greater scrutiny.  When the government
seeks to censor speech based on its content, favoring certain
voices  and  punishing  others,  its  restrictions  must  satisfy 
“strict scrutiny”—meaning they must be justified by inter-
ests that are “compelling,” not just significant.  After all, a 
constitutional right would hardly be needed to protect pop-
ular speakers; the First Amendment does its real work in