Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

1 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

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 GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins as
to Part II, concurring in the judgment in part and dissent-
ing in part. 

I  agree  with  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH  that  the  provision  of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act before us violates 
the  First  Amendment.    Respectfully,  however,  I  disagree
about  why  that  is  so  and  what  remedial  consequences
should follow. 

I 

The TCPA is full of regulations on robocalls.  The statute 
limits  robocalls  to  residential  landlines,  hospitals,  emer-
gency numbers, and business lines.  The only provision be-
fore  us  today,  however,  concerns  robocalls  to  cell  phones,
mobile devices, or “any service for which the called party is 
charged for the call.”  47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  Before 
the law’s enactment, many cell phone users had to pay for 
each call, so they suffered not only the pleasure of robocalls, 
but also the privilege of paying for them.  In 1991, Congress 
sought to address the problem by banning nearly all unso-
licited robocalls to cell phones.

But much has changed since then.  Now, cell phone users 
often pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited minutes, reducing
the cost (if not the annoyance) of hearing from robocallers.