This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (William P. Barr, Attorney General), according to Petitioner (William P. Barr, Attorney General), the case concerns the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) restriction on automated calls to cell phones.
According to Roman MARTINEZ, petitioner argues that the 2015 exception to the TCPA undermines privacy‑related speech.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted that the content of a message determines whether an automated call is permissible under the TCPA.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (William P. Barr, Attorney General)
According to Petitioner (William P. Barr, Attorney General), according to Petitioner (William P. Barr, Attorney General), petitioner cites the 1991 enactment of the TCPA restricting automated calls to cell phones.
Respondent (American Association of Political Consultants, Inc.)
According to Roman MARTINEZ, federal courts cannot fix First Amendment violations by making more speech illegal.
According to Roman MARTINEZ, the 2015 exception undermines privacy‑related speech.
According to Roman MARTINEZ, the restriction at issue is unconstitutional.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 11:42 a.m.
The case was submitted to the Court at 12:55 p.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f33d4d8f3100ebddc8b6-r1-976ed1a4de13c226.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.