ILNews

7th Circuit allows Indiana to enforce ban on out-of-state robo-calls

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana is allowed to enforce the statute that restricts out-of-state robo-calls while an appeal on the issue is ongoing.

On Monday, the Indiana attorney general filed a motion to stay the injunction ordered Sept. 27 by U.S. Judge William Lawrence in Indianapolis which blocked the state’s enforcement of the Indiana Automatic Dialing Machine Statute, or Indiana Code 24-5-14-1. Lawrence ruled the state statute is preempted by a more lenient federal law and can’t be enforced against out-of-state callers. That was a victory for the Illinois-based nonprofit Patriotic Veterans that had argued its First Amendment right was being violated because it couldn’t make politically related calls leading up to elections.

Lawrence denied a motion to stay earlier this month, but now this appellate order means Indiana can again enforce the statute.

“This is truly great news – the holiday season for the people of Indiana will include the peace and quiet we have come to enjoy, without the threat of abusive robo-calls,” AG Greg Zoeller said in a statement. “This court action follows the withdrawal of a bill before Congress that would have allowed robo-calls to cell phones. The people of Indiana who appreciate our Do Not Call laws have much to celebrate.”

Last week, U.S. Rep Lee Terry, R-Nebraska, pulled the legislation he sponsored that would have allowed these calls to be made to cell phones. Zoeller traveled to Washington, D.C., to lead an effort against the bill, known as the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011. A joint letter was sent by nearly all state attorneys general asking Congress to oppose the bill.

The future of the Indiana auto-dialer law remains unclear until the 7th Circuit considers the appeal. Briefing is set to conclude by the end of December, according to the federal court docket.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT