Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. AMERICAN 
ASSOCIATION OF POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, 
INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–631.  Argued May 6, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020 

In  response  to  consumer  complaints,  Congress  passed  the  Telephone 
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to prohibit, inter alia, almost 
all robocalls to cell phones.  47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  In 2015, Con-
gress amended the robocall restriction, carving out a new government-
debt exception that allows robocalls made solely to collect a debt owed
to or guaranteed by the United States.  129 Stat. 588.  The American 
Association of Political Consultants and three other organizations that
participate in the political system filed a declaratory judgment action, 
claiming  that  §227(b)(1)(A)(iii)  violated  the  First  Amendment.    The 
District  Court  determined  that  the  robocall  restriction with  the gov-
ernment-debt exception was content-based but that it survived strict 
scrutiny because of the Government’s compelling interest in collecting 
debt.  The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment, agreeing that the robo- 
call  restriction  with  the  government-debt  exception  was  a  content-
based speech restriction, but holding that the law could not withstand 
strict scrutiny.  The court invalidated the government-debt exception 
and applied traditional severability principles to sever it from the ro-
bocall restriction. 

Held: The judgment is affirmed. 

923 F. 3d 159, affirmed. 

JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH,  joined  by  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE,  JUSTICE 
THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO, concluded in Part II that the 2015 gov-
ernment-debt exception violates the First Amendment.  Pp. 6–9.

(a) The Free Speech Clause provides that government generally “has 
no  power  to  restrict  expression  because  of  its  message,  its  ideas,  its