Robert Cahaly v. Paul LaRosa, III, 796 F.3d 399

Background

South Carolina’s 1991 anti-robocall statute ("Adad" law) criminalized automated recorded calls that are "for the purpose of making an unsolicited consumer telephone call" or are "of a political nature," while exempting certain calls made with express/implied consent or tied to business/debt circumstances. Violations are misdemeanors.
In Sept. 2010 Cahaly (political consultant) placed prerecorded political "survey" calls in six districts asking recipients to press a button responding to a question about a Democratic candidate and Nancy Pelosi. Cahaly had received an informal AG opinion indicating routine automated political surveys might be permitted.
After complaints from candidates, SLED obtained six arrest warrants; Cahaly surrendered, was booked, released, and the warrants were dismissed 18 months later. Cahaly sued under § 1983 and state law and sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the statute unconstitutional.
The district court struck down the statute as a facially content-based restriction failing strict scrutiny, found a disclosure requirement unconstitutional as compelled speech, dismissed vagueness for lack of standing, and granted summary judgment to defendants on damages claims based on qualified immunity and probable cause.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed that the statute is content-based and not narrowly tailored, vacated the compelled-speech ruling for lack of Article III standing, affirmed dismissal of the vagueness claim, and upheld qualified immunity and dismissal of state-law claims because probable cause supported the arrest.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the anti-robocall statute is content-neutral or content-based under Reed	Cahaly argued the statute was an evenhanded time/format regulation aimed at privacy, thus subject to intermediate scrutiny	Defendants argued the statute targets intrusive robocalls regardless of message, so content-neutral	Court: statute is facially content-based (it singles out consumer and political calls), so strict scrutiny applies and statute fails narrow tailoring requirement
Whether the statute survives strict scrutiny (narrow tailoring to a compelling interest)	Cahaly argued statute not narrowly tailored; less restrictive alternatives exist (time limits, ID disclosure, do-not-call lists)	Defendants argued privacy/tranquility is compelling and statute addresses problem	Court: assumed interest compelling but statute not narrowly tailored; underinclusive and overinclusive; alternatives available; invalid under strict scrutiny
Whether mandatory disclosure provision is unconstitutional compelled speech	Cahaly argued compelled ID/disclosure requirement violated First Amendment	Defendants argued no case-or-controversy because Cahaly was not prosecuted under disclosure provision and lacks a credible threat of prosecution	Court: vacated district court’s compelled-speech ruling — Cahaly lacks Article III standing to challenge disclosure provision; dismiss that claim
Whether officers are liable under § 1983 and state law (qualified immunity / probable cause)	Cahaly argued arrest lacked probable cause and was retaliatory, so officials not entitled to qualified immunity; state claims likewise valid	Defendants argued affidavits/witness statements and recording provided probable cause; officers entitled to qualified immunity; state claims fail without lack of probable cause	Court: probable cause existed based on witness statements, recording, phone number link; reasonable officer could rely on warrants (including reasonable law mistake); qualified immunity and dismissal of state false imprisonment/malicious prosecution affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (facial content-based speech restrictions trigger strict scrutiny)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (standing — credible threat of prosecution can create injury-in-fact)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (officers may rely on reasonable mistakes of law for probable cause)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standards for attacking warrant affidavit based on false statements)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity and reasonableness of warrant applications)
United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (less restrictive alternative requirement under strict scrutiny)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (content-neutrality and intermediate scrutiny framework)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (probable cause standard for arrests)