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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT