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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT