| dbo:abstract |
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment. (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-631/ https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20190424096 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180327g78 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-631 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
64477792 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
12848 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1100035556 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:F._Supp._3d dbr:Brett_Kavanaugh dbc:2020_in_United_States_case_law dbr:John_Roberts dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_North_Carolina dbr:Intermediate_scrutiny dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Strict_scrutiny dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Elena_Kagan dbr:Slate_(magazine) dbr:Stephen_Breyer dbr:COVID-19_pandemic dbr:Robocall dbr:4th_Cir. dbr:Ajit_Pai dbr:American_Association_of_Political_Consultants dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:Federal_Communications_Commission dbr:Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991 dbr:E.D.N.C. dbr:Advocacy_group dbc:Telemarketing dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Neil_Gorsuch dbr:Certiorari dbr:Severability dbr:Cell_phones dbr:Reed_v._Gilbert dbr:F.3d |
| dbp:arguedate |
0001-05-06 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear |
2020 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:case |
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (en) |
| dbp:concurrence |
Sotomayor (en) |
| dbp:concurrence/dissent |
Breyer (en) Gorsuch (en) |
| dbp:decidedate |
0001-07-06 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear |
2020 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:docket |
19 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:fullname |
William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al., v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. (en) |
| dbp:holding |
The 2015 government-debt exception of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 violates the First Amendment. (en) |
| dbp:joinconcurrence/dissent |
Thomas (en) Ginsburg, Kagan (en) |
| dbp:joinplurality |
Roberts, Alito; Thomas (en) |
| dbp:justia |
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-631/ |
| dbp:lawsapplied |
dbr:Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991 dbr:First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution |
| dbp:litigants |
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. (en) |
| dbp:otherSource |
Supreme Court (en) |
| dbp:otherUrl |
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf |
| dbp:oyez |
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-631 |
| dbp:parallelcitations |
172800.0 |
| dbp:plurality |
Kavanaugh (en) |
| dbp:prior |
25920.0 |
| dbp:uspage |
___ (en) |
| dbp:usvol |
591 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Uscsub dbt:US1stAmendment |
| dcterms:subject |
dbc:2020_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:Telemarketing |
| rdf:type |
owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase |
| rdfs:comment |
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and viola (en) |
| rdfs:label |
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
wikidata:Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. https://global.dbpedia.org/id/DMrTj |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:Barr_v._American_Assn._of_Political_Consultants,_Inc.?oldid=1100035556&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:Barr_v._American_Assn._of_Political_Consultants,_Inc. |
| foaf:name |
William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al., v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. (en) |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of |
dbr:Barr_v_American_Assn._of_Political_Consultants,_Inc. dbr:Barr_v._American_Association_of_Political_Consultants,_Inc. |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:Danny_Julian_Boggs dbr:Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid dbr:Barr_v_American_Assn._of_Political_Consultants,_Inc. dbr:Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991 dbr:Severability dbr:Barr_v._American_Association_of_Political_Consultants,_Inc. |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:Barr_v._American_Assn._of_Political_Consultants,_Inc. |
