Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that Indiana’s anti-robocall statute (Ind. Code section 24-5-14-5) did not violate First Amendment, even though plaintiff argued that said statute as whole disfavors political speech, and thus entailed content discrimination as set forth in Reed, 135 S. Ct. 2218. Nothing in statute disfavored political speech, since statute only restricted how plaintiff could contact individuals, rather than content of plaintiff’s speech. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s contention that First Amendment required that instant anti-robocall statute carve out exception for political speech and further noted that courts have rejected similar challenges to federal statutes that limit unsolicited calls to cell phones and allow FTC to maintain do-not-call registry for landline phones.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
First Amendment