Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

1 

Opinion of BREYER, 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  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG  and 
JUSTICE KAGAN  join,  concurring  in  the  judgment  with  re-
spect to severability and dissenting in part. 

A federal statute forbids, with some exceptions, making
automatically dialed or prerecorded telephone calls (called 
robocalls)  to  cell  phones.    This  case  concerns  one  of  these 
exceptions, which applies to calls “made solely to collect a 
debt  owed  to  or  guaranteed  by  the  United  States.”  47 
U. S. C.  §227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    A  majority  of  the  Court  holds 
that the exception violates the Constitution’s First Amend-
ment.  In my view, it does not. 

I 

This  case  concerns  the  Telephone  Consumer  Protection 
Act of 1991.  That Act was designed to “protec[t ] telephone 
consumers  from  th[e]  nuisance  and  privacy  invasion”
caused by automated and prerecorded phone calls.  §2(12),
105 Stat. 2395.  The Act, among other things, bans almost
all robocalls made to cell phones.  In particular, it forbids
“any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or 
made with the prior express consent of the called party) us-
ing any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice . . . to any telephone number assigned 
to  a  . . .  cellular  telephone  service.”    §3(a)  (codified  at  47