ILNews

Judge won't allow auto-dialer statute enforcement during appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Balancing free speech rights with the public interest in preventing automated political calls from out-of-state entities, U.S. Judge William Lawrence in Indianapolis denied the state’s request to continue enforcing Indiana’s auto-dialer statute while a higher court is considering his ruling from two months ago that blocked enforcement.

The Southern District of Indiana judge issued a three-page ruling Tuesday, denying a motion to stay while the underlying case – Patriotic Veterans v. State of Indiana, No. 1:10-CV-723 – is on appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filed in June 2010, this case involves an Illinois-based nonprofit that sued Indiana on claims that a state law violates the group’s First Amendment rights by not allowing it to make political calls leading up to elections. Patriotic Veterans claimed the Indiana law is preempted by the similar but more lenient federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 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.

Lawrence ruled Sept. 27 that the 1986 state statute is preempted by the federal law and cannot be enforced. In footnotes, the judge wrote that he has 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.

After filing an appeal in early October, the state asked Lawrence to stay the injunction while the appeal is active. But the judge found the state’s arguments fell short as to why the injunction should be lifted and the calls should be prevented. He wrote that the state’s reliance on the successful Do No Call Law is misplaced and doesn’t prove that Indiana residents would not want automated calls on political issues.

“Absent the injunction, the Plaintiff would be prohibited from making automated calls to Indiana citizens expressing political views during the upcoming election season,” Lawrence wrote. “The Court finds that this lost opportunity to use an economical and efficient means to engage in the political process would constitute substantial injury to the Plaintiff and others. Given this balance of potential harm, the Court determines that even if it is assumed that the Defendants have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, they are nonetheless not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a stay pending appeal.”

The appeal is pending before the 7th Circuit and the federal court docket shows briefing is set to conclude by the end of December.

 

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