Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

with the government-debt exception, is content-based.  The 
answer is yes.   
  As relevant here, a law is content-based if “a regulation 
of speech ‘on its face’ draws distinctions based on the mes-
sage a speaker conveys.”  Reed, 576 U. S., at 163.  That de-
scription applies to a law that “singles out specific subject 
matter for differential treatment.”  Id., at 169.  For exam-
ple,  “a  law  banning  the  use  of  sound  trucks  for  political 
speech—and  only  political  speech—would  be  a  content-
based regulation, even if it imposed no limits on the politi-
cal viewpoints that could be expressed.”  Ibid.; see, e.g., Si-
mon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Vic-
tims  Bd.,  502  U. S.  105,  116  (1991);  Arkansas  Writers’ 
Project,  Inc.  v.  Ragland,  481  U. S.  221,  229–230  (1987); 
Widmar  v.  Vincent,  454  U. S.  263,  265,  276–277  (1981); 
Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 459–463 (1980); Erznoznik 
v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 211–212 (1975); Mosley, 408 
U. S., at 95–96.   
  Under §227(b)(1)(A)(iii), the legality of a robocall turns on 
whether it is “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guar-
anteed by the United States.”  A robocall that says, “Please 
pay your government debt” is legal.  A robocall that says, 
“Please donate to our political campaign” is illegal.  That is 
about as content-based as it gets.  Because the law favors 
speech  made  for  collecting  government  debt  over  political 
and other speech, the law is a content-based restriction on 
speech. 
  The  Government  advances  three  main  arguments  for 
deeming  the  statute  content-neutral,  but  none  is  persua-
sive. 
  First,  the  Government  suggests  that  §227(b)(1)(A)(iii) 
draws distinctions based on speakers (authorized debt col-
lectors),  not  based  on  content.    But  that  is  not  the  law  in 
front  of  us.    This  statute  singles out  calls  “made  solely  to 
collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” 
not all calls from authorized debt collectors.