Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 25

22 

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

and severing the government-debt exception does not raise 
any other constitutional problems.   
  Plaintiffs insist, however, that a First Amendment equal-
treatment case is different.  According to plaintiffs, a court 
should not cure “a First Amendment violation by outlawing 
more speech.”  Brief for Respondents 34.  The implicit prem-
ise  of  that  argument  is  that  extending  the  robocall  re-
striction  to  debt-collection  robocalls  would  be  unconstitu-
tional.  But that is wrong.  A generally applicable robocall 
restriction  would  be  permissible  under  the  First  Amend-
ment.  Extending the robocall restriction to those robocalls 
raises no First Amendment problem.  So the First Amend-
ment does not tell us which way to cure the unequal treat-
ment in this case.  Therefore, we apply traditional severa-
bility principles.  And as we have explained, severing the 
2015  government-debt  exception  cures  the  unequal  treat-
ment  and  constitutes  the  proper  result  under  the  Court’s 
traditional severability principles.  In short, the correct re-
sult in this case is to sever the 2015 government-debt ex-
ception  and  leave  in  place  the  longstanding  robocall  re-
striction.12 

4 
  JUSTICE GORSUCH’s well-stated separate opinion makes 
a number of important points that warrant this respectful 
response.   
  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  suggests  that  our  decision  provides 
“no relief” to plaintiffs.  Post, at 6.  We disagree.  Plaintiffs 
want to be  able to make political robocalls to cell phones, 

—————— 

12

 As the Government acknowledges, although our decision means the 
end of the government-debt exception, no one should be penalized or held 
liable for making robocalls to collect government debt after the effective 
date of the 2015 government-debt exception and before the entry of final 
judgment by the District Court on remand in this case, or such date that 
the lower courts determine is appropriate.  See Reply Brief 24.  On the 
other side of the ledger, our decision today does not negate the liability 
of parties who made robocalls covered by the robocall restriction.