ILNews

State Supreme Court's robo-calls ruling carries over to federal lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court upholding the state’s automated phone call ban has found its way into the briefing of a federal appeal challenging the same statute, and the attorneys disagree on whether the state justices adequately addressed a First Amendment issue.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the case of Patriotic Veteran, Inc. v. State of Indiana, No. 11-32-65, filed by the state attorney general’s office after U.S. Judge William Lawrence in Indianapolis blocked enforcement of Indiana Code 24-5-14-1, known as the Indiana Automatic Dialing Machine Statute. The appellate court decided in late December to allow the state to enforce the ban while appeal is pending on that case, which specifically focuses on whether the Indiana statute is pre-empted by a more lenient federal law involving out-of-state robo-calls.

But adding a wrinkle to that litigation is a separate state court decision Dec. 29 in the case of State of Indiana v. Economic Freedom Fund, FreeEats.com, et al., No. 07S00-1008-MI-411. The decision by the Indiana Supreme Court involves a Brown Circuit case that began in 2006 when automated phone messaging operator FreeEats.com sought to overturn the law banning unsolicited calls with automated messages. Justice Steven David wrote for the 4-1 court that the live-operator requirement does not violate free speech rights or the right to participate in political speech under the Indiana Constitution.

In its opinion, the majority noted that the trial court didn’t address the First Amendment question because it was not before the court. But the justices still stated why they believe that First Amendment argument is likely to fail. They relied on an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision from 1995 to find the Indiana statute is content-neutral and that the restriction on speech is made through private channels to reach private residences.

A day after the state court decision, attorneys in the Patriotic Veterans suit filed a notice of supplemental authority and noted that the Indiana Supreme Court only reviewed the law under the test applied by Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution and “expressly refused to determine whether the ADMS violated the First Amendment of the federal constitution.”

Attorney Paul Jefferson with Barnes & Thornburg pointed to lone-dissenter Justice Frank Sullivan’s 15-page opinion which indicated Sullivan believes the state statute isn’t narrowly tailored and conflicts with Supreme Court of the United States precedent. Jefferson also noted that the state ruling isn’t final until it’s certified, after a possible rehearing request deadline is past.

In a letter filed with the 7th Circuit on Wednesday, the attorney general’s office argues that the state justices did adequately address the federal question even though it wasn’t officially before them.

“Although the Indiana Supreme Court initially suggested that the First Amendment claim was not properly before it, it nonetheless analyzed that claim and ultimately held it was ‘likely to fail’,” the AG’s letter states. “The Economic Freedom Fund decision thus squarely supports the State’s First Amendment arguments in this matter. Furthermore, though that decision was rendered at the preliminary injunction stage, the Indiana Supreme Court left no room for further evidentiary submissions to yield a different result.”

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT