Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

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

In any event, “the fact that a distinction is speaker based”
does not “automatically render the distinction content neu-
tral.”  Reed, 576 U. S., at 170; Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 
564 U. S. 552, 563–564 (2011).  Indeed, the Court has held 
that  “ ‘ laws  favoring  some  speakers  over  others  demand 
strict scrutiny when the legislature’s speaker preference re-
flects a content preference.’ ”  Reed, 576 U. S., at 170 (quot-
ing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 
658 (1994)). 

Second, the Government argues that the legality of a ro-
bocall  under  the  statute  depends  simply  on  whether  the
caller is engaged in a  particular economic activity, not on
the content of speech.  We disagree.  The law here focuses 
on whether the caller is speaking about a particular topic. 
In Sorrell, this Court held that a law singling out pharma-
ceutical marketing for unfavorable treatment was content-
based.  564 U. S., at 563–564.  So too here. 

Third, according to the Government, if this statute is con-
tent-based  because  it  singles  out  debt-collection  speech, 
then so are statutes that regulate debt collection, like the 
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  See 15 U. S. C. §1692 et 
seq.4   That slippery-slope argument is unpersuasive in this 
case.  As  we  explained  in  Sorrell,  “the  First  Amendment 
does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or con-
duct  from  imposing  incidental  burdens  on  speech.”    564 
U. S., at 567.  The law here, like the Vermont law in Sorrell, 
“does not simply have an effect on speech, but is directed at 
certain content and is aimed at particular speakers.”  Ibid. 
The  Government’s  concern  is  understandable,  but  the 
courts have generally been able to distinguish impermissi-
ble content-based speech restrictions from traditional or or-

—————— 

4 This opinion uses the term “debt-collection speech” and “debt-collec-
tion  robocalls”  as  shorthand  for  government-debt  collection  speech  and
robocalls.