ILNews

Justices uphold Indiana robo-calls ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has held the state can continue enforcing a ban on automated robo-calls, with four justices finding that enforcement does not violate the Indiana Constitution’s free speech rights.

The majority ruled Thursday in the case of State of Indiana v. FreeEats.com, et al., No. 07S00-1008-MI-411, which involves a Brown Circuit case that began in 2006 when automated phone messaging operator FreeEats.com sought to overturn the Indiana Autodialer Law that banned unsolicited calls with automated messages. This case focused on a company making the calls on behalf of the Economic Freedom Fund during the 2006 congressional campaign, and FreeEats.com argued that the state requirement of using a live operator on the phone before any prerecorded message could be delivered was a free speech infringement.

Special Judge Kenneth Todd had granted in part and denied in part a preliminary injunction request from FreeEats.com and the state appealed, presenting this case for the justices’ consideration.

Writing for the 4-1 court, Justice Steven David held that the live-operator requirement does not violate free speech rights or the right to participate in political speech. Although the trial court didn’t address the First Amendment question and the justices declined to consider that, they did expand on the court’s rationale in why that claim would likely fail. The Indiana justices relied on an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 1995 and found the Indiana statute is content-neutral and that the restriction on speech is made through private channels to reach private residences.

The court found the Autodialer Law serves a significant government interest in trying to prevent unwanted calls, and the statute leaves open many other forums of communications that could be used to send the same message. FreeEats’ concerns about increased costs don’t invalidate the statute, the court said.

“A conclusion that a statute violates the state constitution when it increases the economic costs to engage in political expression, without any showing that the right to political expression no longer serves its purpose, would be unsound,” David wrote. “Although the Autodialer Law’s live-operator provision is a less-than-ideal requirement for FreeEats, it is not a material burden on its right to engage in political expression.”

Justice Frank Sullivan disagreed with the majority, agreeing with the special judge that the statute in this case imposes an unconstitutional material burden on political speech under the state and federal constitutions. He wrote a 15-page dissent explaining his disagreement, saying he would hold the law fails to satisfy the level of intermediate scrutiny applicable to content-neutral laws, that the statute isn’t narrowly tailored, and that it conflicts with precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT