Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

restriction  on  speech  is  littered  with  exceptions  that  sub-
stantially negate the restriction.  On the contrary, even af-
ter 2015, Congress has retained a very broad restriction on 
robocalls.  The pre-1991 statistics on robocalls show that a
variety of organizations collectively made a huge number of
robocalls.  And there is no reason to think that the incen-
tives  for  those  organizations—and  many  others—to  make 
robocalls has diminished in any way since 1991.  The con-
tinuing  robocall  restriction  proscribes  tens  of  millions  of 
would-be  robocalls  that  would  otherwise  occur  every  day. 
Congress’s continuing broad prohibition of robocalls amply 
demonstrates  Congress’s  continuing  interest  in  consumer
privacy.

The simple reality, as we assess the legislative develop-
ments,  is  that  Congress  has  competing  interests.    Con-
gress’s  growing  interest  (as  reflected  in  the  2015  amend-
ment)  in  collecting  government  debt  does  not  mean  that
Congress  suddenly  lacks  a  genuine  interest  in  restricting 
robocalls.  Plaintiffs seem to argue that Congress must be 
interested either in debt collection or in consumer privacy.
But that is a false dichotomy, as we see it.  As is not infre-
quently the case with either/or questions, the answer to this
either/or question is “both.”  Congress is interested both in
collecting government debt and in protecting consumer pri-
vacy.

Therefore, we disagree with plaintiffs’ broader initial ar-
gument for holding the entire 1991 robocall restriction un-
constitutional. 

B 
Plaintiffs next focus on ordinary severability principles. 
Applying those principles, the question before the Court is 
whether  (i)  to  invalidate  the  entire  1991  robocall  re-
striction,  as  plaintiffs  want,  or  (ii)  to  invalidate  just  the 
2015 government-debt exception and sever it from the re-
mainder of the statute, as the Government wants.