ILNews

Federal judge finds U.S. law preempts state 'robo-call' statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state is not able to prevent out-of-state entities from placing political calls to residents within Indiana because of an existing federal law, according to a federal judge’s ruling on Indiana’s auto-dialer statute.

U.S. Judge William Lawrence in the Southern District of Indiana issued an eight-page decision late Tuesday in Patriotic Veterans v. State of Indiana, No. 1:10-CV-723, ruling that the 23-year-old state statute is preempted by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Filed June 10, 2010, this case is one of a handful of similar suits that have played out in state and federal courts during the past several years about the Indiana Auto-Dialer Statute that passed in 1988 but largely went unenforced until 2006.

This case involves an Illinois-based nonprofit that sued Indiana on claims that the state law violates the group’s First Amendment rights by not allowing it to make political calls leading up elections. Patriotic Veterans claimed the Indiana law is preempted by the similar but more lenient federal TCPA. Unlike the state statute banning all pre-recorded telemarketing calls unless the consumer has given consent, the federal law makes exceptions for nonprofit groups, telephone carriers, and politicians.

In his ruling, Judge Lawrence granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the state’s motion and granted a permanent injunction preventing the enforcement of Indiana Code 24-5-14. In footnotes, the judge wrote that he’s limited his decision to the preemption issue and is not addressing the First Amendment claims, and that he’s declining to enter a broader injunction that would apply to more than political messages even though the court’s ruling could support that.

Judge Lawrence found that the TCPA doesn’t contain an express preemption clause, but rather has a savings clause that applies to specific intrastate requirements and regulations. Legislative support also proves that intent, he wrote.

“The language of the savings clause coupled with the consistent legislative history leads the Court to determine that the TCPA was enacted with the purpose of establishing exclusive regulations relating to the interstate use of automatic telephone dialing systems, as well as establishing regulations that would apply to their intrastate use unless a particular state chose to enact (or had already enacted) more stringent regulations,” Judge Lawrence wrote. “To read the TCPA otherwise would render the word ‘intrastate’ within the savings clause entirely meaningless and thus be inconsistent with the ‘cardinal principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’ If Congress intended for the TCPA to have no preemptive effect, it would not have included the word ‘intrastate’ in the savings clause; the fact that it did indicates that it intended for state laws relating to interstate use of automatic telephone dialing systems… to be preempted, while more restrictive intrastate laws would be enforceable.”

Judge Lawrence disagreed with the state’s interpretation of the TCPA language that it doesn’t apply to the state statute, and although the wording and grammatical structure is awkward, the Congressional intent is clear that Indiana’s law is preempted in this situation.

How all this factors into the broader constitutional questions remains unclear. The First Amendment claims could be addressed on appeal in the federal courts, while the Indiana Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided the case of State of Indiana v. FreeEats.com, No. 07S00-1008-MI-411, that focuses more specifically on state constitutional issues. The justices heard arguments in January on that Brown County case involving the attempted enforcement of the state statute. Those same constitutional questions about the 1988 statute were left open by the state’s high court in December 2008, when the justices unanimously determined the state law isn’t limited to commercial message calls placed to consumers but stopped short of deciding how the law applies to political messages.

Attorney Paul Jefferson with Barnes & Thornburg, who represents both Patriotic Veterans and Freeeats.com, said the two cases are on parallel but separate courses and that he doesn’t think the justices needed to wait on this federal suit’s resolution. The Office of the Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Wednesday he will appeal the ruling and ask for an immediate stay.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT