Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. State of Indiana
736 F.3d 1041
7th Cir.2013Background
- Indiana enacted an autodialer statute prohibiting autodialed calls unless consent obtained; limited exemptions exist (school districts, employer relationships) but no political-exemption.
- Patriotic Veterans, an Illinois nonprofit, would make political autodialed calls in Indiana; argues the Indiana statute is unconstitutional as to political messages.
- Patriotic Veterans also argues the Indiana statute is preempted by the Federal TCPA, which regulates interstate autodialing and messaging.
- The TCPA prohibits calls to residential lines using prerecorded messages without prior express consent, with FCC exemptions for non-commercial calls.
- District court held the TCPA preempts Indiana law as applied to interstate calls and enjoined enforcement; the Seventh Circuit stayed and then granted review.
- Court reverses preemption holding and remands to consider whether Indiana’s statute violates the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCPA preempts Indiana statute | Patriotic Veterans: express preemption via savings clause; Indiana bans intrastate autodialing. | Indiana: savings clause allows coexistence; no express preemption of intrastate prohibitions. | No express preemption; not preempted. |
| Whether implied preemption applies (field or conflict) | Patriotic Veterans: TCPA occupies interstate field; Indiana impedes federal objectives. | States may regulate intrastate telemarketing; no field preemption; no impossibility to comply. | No field or conflict preemption established. |
| Whether Indiana statute violates the First Amendment | Patriotic Veterans argues the prohibition burdens political speech. | Indiana law survives as reasonable regulation of speech to protect privacy. | Remand to address First Amendment merits. |
| Whether legislative history clarifies congressional intent | Patriotic Veterans relies on Senate Report and sponsor comments. | Legislative history is not controlling; text governs. | Legislative history not controlling; focus on statutory text. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presumption against preemption; express language governs)
- Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (read preemption with presumption against it; ambiguous clauses favored against preemption)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (field preemption considerations; completeness of federal regime)
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) (presumption against preemption; state regulation coexists with federal)
- Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992) (conflict preemption analysis limited; not all overlap equal)
- Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983) (field preemption considerations; comprehensive federal regimes)
- Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1548 (1995) (TCPA preemption and state regulation; savings clause significance)
- FreeEats.com, 712 N.W.2d 828 (ND 2006) (state law not preempted when consistent with federal framework)