Editors Note: This is your definitive guide to the big SCOTUS oral argument today. For our live and unfiltered thoughts on the argument as it unfolded see here and here. Additionally we will have a VIDEO podcast discussing the SCOTUS argument up this week. Check back for more.
Well folks, today was the big dayoral argument took place in Barr v. AAPC and it did not disappoint.
With the advocates and the Supreme Court Justices including Ginsburg who called in from a hospital bed calling into the hearing by phone the stage was set for a robust back-and-forth between the advocates and the Justices, who asked questions in order of seniority.
What emerged over the hour-long argument was the tale of a stark choice: strike down the entirety of a beloved statute (the Telephone Consumer Protection Act) whichat least according to popular fiction combats robocalls or sever an unconstitutional exemption to the TCPA and forever set precedent allowing courts to expand unconstitutional restrictions on speech by judicial fiat.
What a choice!
Remarkably there is ZERO case law directly on point here as the advocates both acknowledged in their arguments. That leaves the Supreme Court justices with a blank slate to draw on in formulating the proper dimensions of First Amendment scrutiny where a content-neutral restriction on speech contains an unconstitutional, content-specific exemption. That also makes AAPC v. Barra huge casenot just for the TCPA for First Amendment precedent and our freedom of speech as a whole.
While it is always dangerous to draw conclusions from oral argumentjustices notoriously will ask questions that do not ultimately tip their hand we think the tea leaves here are pretty safe to read to some degree. Here are our TOP 10 takeaways from the big AAPC v. Barr TCPA review.
1. The TCPAs Government-Backed Debt Exemption is Dead:
If there was any doubt that the government-back debt exemption might be upheld going into the oral argument, the questions of the Justices seem to put those doubts to bed.
The exemption was already limping when, ahead of oral argument, the government conceded away the position that the government-backed debt exemption does NOT survive strict scrutiny. That left it in the difficult position of arguing that the exemption was not content-baseda real stretch.
The Court did not seem impressed. Several of the justices expressed an outright rejection of this concept from the bench, highly suggesting that the government-backed debt exemption is a goner.
Justice Kavanaugh was, perhaps, the most direct of the justices in his remarks, commenting:
I think the government-debt exception is almost certainly content based. You dont argue that it could satisfy strict scrutiny. Those two things make this a case about severability.
-Justice Kavanaugh commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
Bye bye government-backed debt exemption.
2. Striking Down the Entire TCPA is Very Much on the Table:
As noted above, the Supreme Court Justices really seem to be struggling with the idea of striking down the entire TCPA. Nonetheless, that appears to be one of the stark and few choices available to SCOTUS in addressing the Respondents meritorious First Amendment challenge to the TCPAs government-backed debt exemption.
Chief Justice Roberts himself set the stage for the possibility that the TCPA might fall in its entirety early in the argument:
I wonder why in that situation the whole statute shouldnt fall.
-Chief Justice Roberts commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May , 2020.
The situation the Chief Justice was analyzing was one where an exemption is perfectly legal standing alone but only becomes legal with reference to a restriction (remember when the Archduke analyzed that issue?):
When we sever provisions its because they are illegal. here there is nothing illegal about the government-debt exception
-Chief Justice Roberts commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
3. The Justices Seemed Deeply Concerned With Expanding an Unconstitutional Restriction on Speech as a Remedy for a Successful First Amendment Challenge
The most common category of questions posed to both advocates involved the irony of expanding an unconstitutional restriction on speech as a remedy to a successful challenger of a speech restriction. As several justices noted, this is not an equal protection casewhere severing exemptions can make everyone equalbut rather a direct First Amendment challenge where the challengers substantive right to speak has been infringed.
Justice Gorsuch framed issue perhaps best of all when he noted the:
[i]rony of a First Amendment challenge leading to the suppression of more speech as a remedy
-Justice Gorsuch commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
He also delivered a powerful blow to the idea that severence is the proper remedy to a First Amendment violation by pointing out that the Respondents neither sought the remedy of severence nor had standing to seek it, even if they wanted it:
They didnt seek the relief and they dont have standing to seek that relief [striking the exemption]..should that tell us anything?
-Justice Gorsuch commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
And Justice Alito was in clear agreement:
In a free speech case what the complaining party is objecting to is a restriction on its speech [if severance is applied] the complaining party does not get what it wants
-Justice Alito commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
4. The Justices Also Seemed Concerned that Striking the Exemption Would Take Away the Rights of Non-Parties to the Case
The Justices also recognized that striking an exemption would result in the rights of non-parties to the case being taken awaya deprivation of both due process and a substantive right to speak. Indeed, Justice Thomaswho is renowned for rarely speaking at oral argumentstated matters bluntly remarking that severing the restriction:
seems to be taking speech away from someone who is not in this case.
-Justice Thomas commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
5. The Supreme Court Justices Are a Big Fan of the TCPA For Some Strange Reason:
If anyone thought the Supreme Court might not like the vague and unwieldy restrictions of the TCPAguess again. Over and over again the Justices heaped (undeserved?) praise upon the statute, suggesting that it was responsible for preventing unwanted robocalls.
Chief Justice Roberts began the praise when he called the TCPA an extremely popular law in response to a comment by Respondents counsel that it ought to be struck down.
Then there was this gem:
The TCPA is one of the more popular laws on the bookswant to argue against that common sense?
-Justice Kavanaugh commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
6. There Was Not Much Discussion of a Middle Ground:
As noted above, the choice before the Supreme Court appears starkstrike down the TCPA entirely or expand a restriction on speech to the assistance of none and the detriment of non-parties.
Indeed, throughout the entire argument there was only ONE reference to a possible middle ground and it seems an unlikely one. Specifically, Justice Sotomayor suggested that the proper remedy might be to somehow carve out political speech from the reach of the TCPA. Her words:
Why shouldnt we limit any remedy striking down this provision simply to permit the types of calls that your clients make?
Justice Sotomayor commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
7. The TCPAs Chances of Survival Were Greatly Helped by the Identity of the Respondentand the Tactical Choice to Diminish the Value of Privacy in Challenging the Statute:
It is said that bad facts make bad law and this case may end up adding further proof to that adage.
If the TCPA survives SCOTUS review in Barr v. AAPCit will almost certainly beat least in partbecause the Respondent was attempting to defend unsolicited out of the blue calls, rather than targeted specific calls to, for instance, customers of a business. But preventing random-fired out of the blue calls is precisely what Congress wanted to stop when it enacted the TCPA in the first place.
Whereas a business making targeted calls could easily argue that the TCPA is overly broad as applied to themagain it was designed to prevent the nuisance and intrusion of random-fired calls not expected contacts from businesses the Petitioner in this suit (apparently) did not feel comfortable making a similar over breadth challenge. Instead its counsel focused again and again on the government lacking a compelling interest in protecting privacy. At one point counsel argued that the interest in protecting privacy is just not strong enough to justify the TCPAs restrictions.
You read that right. Respondents primary argument as to why the TCPA does not survive First Amendment review is because privacy is not really that big of a deal anyway.
Eesh. I mean. Come on.
But giving the argument its due, Respondent contends that Congress showed it did not really care about privacy in enacting the TCPA when it amended the statute in 2015 to exalt the collection of money over protecting consumers. If privacy was all that compelling Congress would never have made that choice. I mean, right?
Hmmm. I dont know. Probably would have been better if the Respondent could have faithfully argued that the TCPAs vague and unwieldy ATDS restriction covers way more speech than necessary to accomplish the statutes stated objective, a point Justice Ginsburg herself recognized:
What congress wanted to stop were out of the blue calls. [debt collection] calls are not out of the blue, they are simply a reminder..
-Justice Ginsburg commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
Ugh. What might have been.
8. The Government Was Very Concerned that the Supreme Court Might Focus Scrutiny on the ATDS Restriction and not the Exemption
The Respondent was not alone in making some interesting tactical choices. The DOJs SGarguing in support of the TCPAs constitutionality as Petitionerkept answering the question that no one was asking: does the TCPAs ATDS definition survive First Amendment review?
Over and over again throughout the argument and in discussions with virtually every justice, the Petitioners counsel hammered that the ATDS restriction survives the appropriate level of scrutiny. This is true although there was barely a whisper from the justices on the issue.
Without a doubt both the Respondents brief and TCPAWorld.com focused much fire on the ATDS restriction and the need to apply scrutiny to the restriction rather than the exemption, but the Petitioners focus on this issuewhich seemed a phantom before a court obsessed with severability seemed an odd choice. (It may, however, prove to have been tactically brilliant iffor instancethe Court elects to sever and still reviews the TCPA under intermediate scrutiny.)
9. This is a True Issue of FirstImpressionWhich Means the Ruling Could Have Huge Impact on our Freedom of Speech Moving Forward
Throughout the oral argument multiple justices and the advocates themselves remarked that there was really no direct precedent available to guide the issue of severability. As we have written repeatedly, never before has the Supreme Court struck an exemption in order to expand a statute as a remedy to a successful First Amendment challenge.
As Justice Alito framed the issueafter calling it fascinatingthe question is:
what is best precedent for application of severability analysis in case like this where arguably a regulation of speech is unconstitutional only because it contains a content based exception.
Justice Alito commenting at oral argument in AAPC v. Barr, May 6, 2020.
As already noted above, the Supreme Courts take on this issue will set incredibly-important precedent that will determine the way lower courts are to apply First Amendment principles for decades to come.
10. There Was Very Little Discussion of the ATDS Definition But that Doesnt Mean it Wont Get Resolved on This Appeal
One of the key things we were looking for is whether and to what degree the Supreme Court justices were focused on applying scrutiny to the ATDS restriction. Based on the questions of the justices there appears to be very little focus on that issue in this appeal.
Nonetheless, as the Court grapples with the difficult and stark choice presented by this appeal, the common sense solution available to it may still find its way into a majority opinion: apply strict scrutiny to the TCPAs ATDS restriction, read it narrowly, and uphold the statute intact.
That was my prediction going in to oral argument andalthough I concede the likelihood of that prediction coming true took a hit todayit still seems the easiest and most logical resolution to the difficult questions posed byAAPC v. Barr.
- Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Beaumont Enterprise - July 21st, 2020
- Watch | Can states ban the display of the Confederate flag? in 'Legally Speaking' - WKYC.com - July 21st, 2020
- The US Army's Twitch bans may violate the First Amendment - PC Gamer - July 21st, 2020
- 'Disillusionment With Leadership is About Free Speech, Can't Disqualify for it': Sachin Pilot's Amended H... - News18 - July 21st, 2020
- Freedom of speech is under threat like never before and we must fight back, LEO McKINSTRY - Express - July 21st, 2020
- Assault on rights to free speech, dissent: 99 ex-IAS, IPS, IFS officers say in open letter - ThePrint - July 5th, 2020
- Freedom of expression is under threat in Lebanon - Middle East Monitor - July 5th, 2020
- No masks allowed: stores turn customers away in US culture war - The Guardian - May 24th, 2020
- Vaccination and coronavirus: Public good clashes with choice, freedom - UPI News - May 24th, 2020
- Have We Weaponized Virtue? - lareviewofbooks - May 24th, 2020
- Hate Speech and the New Tyranny over the Mind - Heritage.org - May 24th, 2020
- [ANALYSIS] The right to call the government crazy - Rappler - May 24th, 2020
- How a 20-year-old student put the spotlight on Australian universities' cosy relationship with China - The Guardian - May 24th, 2020
- Freedom of Speech Is Under the Gun as the Virus Spreads in Russia - The Nation - May 11th, 2020
- Divorcing Parents Have a Right to Post Their Stories Online, Court Says - The New York Times - May 11th, 2020
- Gov. Whitmer becomes target of dozens of threats on private Facebook groups ahead of armed rally in Lansing - Detroit Metro Times - May 11th, 2020
- Readers' Letters: 'Hate bill an attack on free speech and could affect football and comedy' - Evening Telegraph - May 11th, 2020
- Assange's US Extradition, Threat to Future of the Internet and Democracy - CounterPunch - May 11th, 2020
- Readers React: Are the reopen protests about free speech or presidential politics? - The San Diego Union-Tribune - May 6th, 2020
- The SNPs war on free speech - Spiked - May 6th, 2020
- The best political reads to keep on your bookshelf - Spectator.co.uk - May 6th, 2020
- A Contrarian's View of the Uses, and Abuses, of Free Speech - Jewish Week - April 9th, 2020
- Update: Signature Gatherers and Solicitors | Downey Brand LLP - JD Supra - April 9th, 2020
- U of I protests of the 1960s - Illinois Times - April 9th, 2020
- China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech - The Daily Wire - April 9th, 2020
- A Zionist attack on free speech - Redress Information & Analysis - April 9th, 2020
- How the Chinese Government Undermined the Chinese People's Attempts to Prevent and Respond to COVID-19 - Heritage.org - April 9th, 2020
- ACLJ to File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pro-Life Speech Case Battling the Abortion Distortion - American Center for Law and Justice - April 9th, 2020
- The Right Constitutional Philosophy for This Moment - The Atlantic - March 31st, 2020
- Lebanese Activists Fear Hezbollah-led Government Is Using Coronavirus to Solidify Power - VOA News - March 31st, 2020
- Improving decision-making in the face of growing misinformation - Ecofin Agency: Economic information from Africa - March 31st, 2020
- Ming Pao row: If we learn anything from the virus outbreak, it should be the importance of free speech - Hong Kong Free Press - March 31st, 2020
- Freedom of speech 'is the property of the left of politics' - Sky News Australia - March 31st, 2020
- No one is safe from the puritanical poison of wokeness says SIR JOHN HAYES - Express - March 31st, 2020
- ASG introduces three resolutions, votes on advocacy committee - The Daily Northwestern - March 5th, 2020
- Why Toby Young and other robust white men are using free speech to whip universities - The Guardian - March 5th, 2020
- A Slap in the Face: Chinese Readers Share Their Coronavirus Stories - The New York Times - March 5th, 2020
- Opposition to Ted Nugent - Villages-News - March 5th, 2020
- Bitcoin Is the Technology of Dissent That Secures Individual Liberties - Bitcoin Magazine - March 5th, 2020
- NRB Resolves that Religious Liberty & Freedom of Speech Must Prevail - MissionsBox - March 5th, 2020
- The Guardian is not a fan of Toby Young or free speech - The Post Millennial - March 5th, 2020
- No platforming nowhere near as productive as debate or conversation - The Badger Herald - March 5th, 2020
- When The PC Police Come For Our Books - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com - March 5th, 2020
- Following the crowd - Education - WORLD News Group - March 5th, 2020
- How progressives and conservatives have changed the debate over freedom of speech - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) - February 27th, 2020
- What transgenderism and Islam have in common: Destroying free speech - Lifesite - February 27th, 2020
- Hitler would be very proud of the Aalst Carnival in Belgium! - The Times of Israel - February 27th, 2020
- Facebook and Zuckerberg keep getting freedom of expression wrong - The Next Web - January 21st, 2020
- Sheffield Arena urged to cancel event by 'homophobic' Trump ally - The Guardian - January 21st, 2020
- Ninth Circuit Affirms Anti-Libel Injunction, Rejects Overbroad Portion - Reason - January 21st, 2020
- What we still havent learned from Gamergate - Vox.com - January 21st, 2020
- Montclair State Univ. Sued for 'Unconstitutional' Speech Policy and Favoring One Student Group Over Another Based on Their Beliefs - CBN News - January 21st, 2020
- POV: Trump's Executive Order Aimed at Protecting Jews Will Have a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech at Colleges - BU Today - December 21st, 2019
- 92% of Americans think their basic rights are being threatened, new poll shows - USA TODAY - December 21st, 2019
- Trump's Executive Order Targets Federal Funding to Universities in Suppression of Speech on Palestinian Rights - International Middle East Media... - December 21st, 2019
- Washington State's Mike Leach responds to Donald Trump impeachment: 'I'm yet to hear what he did wrong' - Sports and Weather Right Now - December 21st, 2019
- Impeachment won't slow the global rise of the radical right but an alternative vision might - Salon - December 21st, 2019
- Over Regulating Intermediaries: Threat To Free Speech? - Inc42 Media - December 15th, 2019
- Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom to be adopted - News - The University of Sydney - December 15th, 2019
- Is YouTube Cracking Down on Free Speech With New 'Harassment Policy'? - NewsBusters - December 15th, 2019
- Johnson orders universities to protect freedom of speech - Stock Daily Dish - December 15th, 2019
- Freedom of speech must trump safe spaces in universities, minister says - Stock Daily Dish - December 15th, 2019
- Alberta premier says energy war room will be respectful as it takes on critics - CFJC Today Kamloops - December 15th, 2019
- Amnesty International Canada Questions Freedom of Speech and Assembly - Reason - December 13th, 2019
- Why we need to stop believing freedom of speech is a dangerous thing - Marie Claire UK - December 13th, 2019
- Drawing the Line: When Does Freedom of Speech Go Too Far? - SUNY The New Paltz Oracle - December 13th, 2019
- RTI is Inbuilt within Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, says Bombay HC - Moneylife - December 13th, 2019
- Opinion: The clear line between hate speech and free speech - DW (English) - November 26th, 2019
- Appleton school board signs off on policy that some say endangers free speech, others see as a constitutional safeguard - Post-Crescent - November 26th, 2019
- What to Be Thankful For | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute - November 26th, 2019
- Universities Enabling the Hijacking of Free Speech When Jews are Involved - The Times of Israel - November 26th, 2019
- Documentary Takes Aim At Higher Eds Free Speech Violations - Washington Free Beacon - November 26th, 2019
- Should the First Amendment protect language deemed to be hate speech? - The Vector: NJIT's Student Newspaper - November 26th, 2019
- Fight to protect your freedom of speech - The Saint - November 26th, 2019
- Improv joke reaction: What about free speech? - Mount Airy News - November 26th, 2019
- Trump defends Yovanovitch attack: 'I have freedom of speech' | TheHill - The Hill - November 17th, 2019
- 'Critical Infrastructure' Bill Is a Major Threat to Freedom of Speech - Shepherd Express - November 17th, 2019
- Free speech rights a concern in Wisconsin water resolution - Minneapolis Star Tribune - November 17th, 2019
- Freedom of speech and freedom from lies - Opinion - Cape Cod Times - November 17th, 2019
- Trump: 'I Have Freedom of Speech Just as Other People Do' - MRCTV - November 17th, 2019