Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Indiana Ex Rel. Zoeller
821 F. Supp. 2d 1074
S.D. Ind.2011Background
- Patriotic Veterans, Inc. seeks to place automated interstate calls to Indiana residents to convey political messages about candidates/issues.
- IADMS Indiana Code 24-5-14-1 et seq. restricts dialing practices unless specific consent/ live operator prerequisites are met.
- Indiana AG Zoeller opposes exempting political calls and would enforce and seek penalties under IADMS if violated.
- Violation of IADMS constitutes a Class C misdemeanor under Indiana law.
- Plaintiff argues TCPA preempts IADMS as applied to interstate political calls; court must consider preemption before constitutional claims.
- Court grants Plaintiff’s summary judgment and injunction, holding IADMS preempted by TCPA for interstate political calls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TCPA preempt IADMS as applied to interstate political calls? | Plaintiff asserts TCPA preempts IADMS for interstate uses. | Defendants contend savings clause preserves intrastate flexibility; IADMS not preempted. | TCPA preempts IADMS for interstate use. |
| Does the TCPA savings clause save IADMS intrastate provisions as written? | Savings clause might preserve more restrictive intrastate rules, not interstate use. | Savings clause protects intrastate restrictions; reads to permit some non-preemption. | Savings clause does not save IADMS; IADMS preempted for interstate calls. |
| Is there basis to avoid constitutional analysis by addressing preemption first? | Court should consider preemption before First Amendment issues. | Court should also consider constitutional arguments if necessary. | Court addressed preemption first and did not need to reach First Amendment arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana Bell Tel. Co. v. Indiana Util. Regul. Comm., 359 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2004) (Congressional intent; ultimate touchstone of preemption)
- Ameritech Corp. v. McCann, 403 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2005) (non-constitutional grounds first; preemption analysis)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (strict reading of statutes; avoid odd results; interpretive guidance)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (sponsor's statements carry weight in preemption analysis)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (cardinal principle of statutory construction; give effect to every term)