Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 4

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal resvision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–631 
_________________ 

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

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

[July 6, 2020]

 JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH  announced  the  judgment  of  the 
Court  and  delivered  an  opinion,  in  which  THE  CHIEF 
JUSTICE  and  JUSTICE  ALITO  join,  and  in  which  JUSTICE 
THOMAS joins as to Parts I and II. 

Americans passionately disagree about many things.  But 
they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls.  The 
Federal Government receives a staggering number of com-
plaints  about  robocalls—3.7  million  complaints  in  2019 
alone.  The States likewise field a constant barrage of com-
plaints.

For nearly 30 years, the people’s representatives in Con-
gress have been fighting back.  As relevant here, the Tele-
phone  Consumer  Protection  Act  of  1991,  known  as  the
TCPA,  generally  prohibits  robocalls  to  cell  phones  and 
home phones.  But a 2015 amendment to the TCPA allows 
robocalls that are made to collect debts owed to or guaran-
teed by the Federal Government, including robocalls made
to collect many student loan and mortgage debts. 

This case concerns robocalls to cell phones.  Plaintiffs in 
this case are political and nonprofit organizations that want