Roberta Lindenbaum v. Realgy, LLC, 13 F.4th 524

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) broadly banned robocalls to cell phones and landlines; Congress added a 2015 exception allowing robocalls "solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States."
The Supreme Court in Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Pol. Consultants, Inc. (AAPC) held the 2015 government-debt exception unconstitutional as impermissible content discrimination but severed that exception from the TCPA.
Roberta Lindenbaum received robocalls from Realgy in 2019–2020 and sued under the TCPA; after AAPC Realgy moved to dismiss.
The district court held the severability outcome in AAPC was a prospective-only remedy, concluded the TCPA was "void" for the period the exception was on the books, and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The United States intervened to defend the statute; the Sixth Circuit treated the dismissal as a Rule 12(b)(6) failure-to-state-a-claim and reviewed de novo.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding severability is interpretive (not a prospective-only remedy) and therefore the Court’s severing in AAPC governs retroactively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severability retroactivity	Lindenbaum: Severability is interpretation and applies retroactively; TCPA enforceable for 2015–2020	Realgy: Severability is a remedial/quasi-legislative fix that operates prospectively only, so TCPA was void while the exception stood	Court: Severability is interpretive; unconstitutional provision is treated as never law; severance applies retroactively; reversal
Nature of severability	Severance is statutory interpretation (not a traditional remedy)	Severance functions as a remedy or quasi-legislative act	Court: Severability is interpretation of what statute has meant from enactment, not a forward-only remedy
First Amendment / fair notice defense	(Not relied on to defeat retroactivity here)	Realgy: Fair-notice due-process defense for government-debt collectors would recreate content discrimination if private collectors are retroactively liable	Court: Fair-notice is speech-neutral; even if available to some collectors, it does not convert into a First Amendment exemption or bar retroactive interpretation
Procedural posture / jurisdiction	Lindenbaum: Federal question jurisdiction exists if statute read without the unconstitutional exception	Realgy: Because statute was "void" during the exception, there was no federal-question jurisdiction	Court: Treat dismissal as 12(b)(6); plaintiff pleaded a claim under the statute as interpreted post-severance; dismissal reversed

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (establishes judicial review and that legislative acts contrary to the Constitution are not law)
Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (held 2015 government-debt exception content-based and severed it from the TCPA)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (describes judicial power to decide cases and the nature of final judgments)
Harper v. Va. Dep't of Tax'n, 509 U.S. 86 (explains the longstanding principle that judicial decisions operate retrospectively)
Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (states Constitution displaces conflicting statutory provisions from their enactment)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (framework for assessing retroactivity of statutory changes)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (post-enactment legislative changes do not alter the facial constitutionality of the law in effect at the time of enforcement)
Seila Law LLC, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (uses "remedy" language for severance but applied severability rule to all cases on direct review)
Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749 (describes exceptions where a previously existing independent legal basis can preclude application of a new rule)