And to emergency and cellular lines but not to residential lines. Under wellestablished rules of statutory construction the entire phrase to be called sequential Number Generator that has a statue of impossible between the definition and the targeted mission under ordinary rules of grammar that modifier not just a second and so those of the disparate impact reinforces that conclusion first it is set off by that, modified by the verb and second a direct object the direct object of those telephone numbers to be called in those were significant judicial that. And then to the Residential Land line. From those in 1991. And with those multiple business lines that were in with those and if they were really aiming at those calls from devices the failure to protect the hope would be inexplicable. Mr. Clement your friend on the other side says we should look at the passage and not to the rules of syntax. I know you were dispute about the passage but as a general matter he is right . The drafters here were not following the redondo singular or to diagram a sentence so why should we focus on syntax to the extent i think both parties do . I think because the other way lies madness with all due respect. One deviates from the rules of ordinary grammar and statutory construction that essentially to empower the judiciary to rewrite the statutes the respect to my friends on the other side thats at the invite you to do here. I think congress had a very specific problem in this position and it was successful to eradicate and my friend would like to use the sense of the statute to reap us the mission to address modern ill. Its clear they didnt have in mind the modern ills that would lead to a disaster of his interpretation were not opted is that something we should consider at all . I dont think its something you should really consider and it gives very little credence to congress his own ability to address these in an ongoing way and Congress Passed another statute to direct the problem telemarketing calls and what it did was to create a process where the technology we use with their home phones and cellular phones it is self please call. Thank you counsel Justice Thomas. Thank you mr. Chief justice. Thank you mr. Chief justice. This isnt central to your case, but i am interested in why a text message is considered a call under the t cpa . That is an excellent question Justice Thomas and i think it is another way in which the courts have essentially updated the statute to keep up with the times its not at all clear a statue directed not just our calls but also in particular artificial or the recorded voice calls is not even a text at all and if one word hold to voice calls and not the text that would be an alternative route for pulling in her favor in this case the other thing i would point to there is the amicus brief to the Washington Legal Foundation that has reference this specifically and what they point out in more recent statutes when Congress Addresses a call or a text they do so to get a real evidence to talk about the text as a call but the text that is received. When we talk about a Number Generator under the t cpa, are we talking about a device or process . Perhaps it makes more sense of it is a device. What is your thought on that quick. Justice thomas, likely bed as the process as a part of equipment. So maybe you have in mind a Computer Program that has a number as the Number Generator than dials the number. Justice breyer. My only question in light of your answer to the chief justice i think if you say your friends definition that would be unlawful for a person to use a cell phone. Like an Emergency Hospital number to make a call to the Emergency Line of the hospital . Is that right quick. Thats right Justice Breyer. Are you telling the chief justice that is irrelevant . No i didnt mean to say that is irrelevant. What you say thats really important . It does have a very peculiar or weird result it does have something to do with the interpretation . Absolutely. I was just responding to the idea rather than results produced by the words and their syntax would restart creeping into the city says which that is in you. Circles by dont think thats featured in this courts cases. I think the general point for all general purposes they are all relevant and in this case in my opinion you have a a strong case on the consequences. Obviously Justice Breyer there is a range of views on this court how you look beyond the text of the consequences i think your text and consequences played part of that of the past. Justice alito. Sorry. The statutory phrase we have to interpret in this phrase has a structure that is fairly common to activities to produce telephone numbers followed by a modifying phrase do you think that Number Generator those who hear them or read them understand what they mean without looking at a treatise of interpretation but they do that by asking what makes sense. I give a lot of examples but i have very little time for questioning. They ask about the sense of it they get to the arcane stuff. So does it make any sense with a list of telephone numbers using a random or sequential Number Generator . The best answer i can find in the brief is that there were systems that produced a list of numbers using such a generator and then stored them but unless you can explain how the generator was used in the process of storing the numbers, think we have a proble problem. Justice alito, two quick things i do think readers have the advantage over listeners because they can look at the actuation and they do think it is important but the heart of your question, dont think there is anything nonsensical or redundant about talking about using a random Number Generator to store numbers its no different in with the phase a lot of people would use to describe the provision of dialing of numbers using random Number Generator. In both i think they are sensible it just means youre using the Number Generator. Not use the actual dialing or storing the process to store telephone numbers or the process of dialing numbers to be called to if you understand the terms in that way it is. Accents to get the idea congress was trying to prohibit the use of the Number Generator for immediate dialing to be produced or captured. Mr. Clement with the other side once it would cover too many devices. Is the issue with the interpretation more with the t cpa being outdated if it was past 30 years ago self posted not even exist for today is to references pagers. But you are right to know today almost all have the ability to store for numbers of congress wanted to do was stop call that was automatic and thats what it would accomplish would it be out on their job to bring it in line with the times . Justice certainly i deafly think its congresses job to update the statute now think it only materializes with the modern smart phone. The basic problem is and Technology People in 1991 like speed dialing or Call Forwarding the capacity to store the number of the fcc confronted that in 1992 rule that says dont worry about speed dialing for Call Forwarding does not cover the is covered because it doesnt use a sequential Number Generator so the entire history is been read way too broadly and since the very beginning the sensible way to avoid that outcome is to use a sequential Number Generator to modify to store and produce. I would like to give you a hypothetical along the lines of Justice Alito it is illegal to stab or shoot another person using a firearm. What i be covered if i stab somebody with a knife . I say the word is to use the bayonet but i think that gets to use the sense that you provided in the Supreme Court decision in the health case there are certain combinations of words where the mind would also the combination of the two words and they are it is very clear dealing with a bayonet using stabbing somebody with a firearm without leftdoublequote stick impossibility using equipment to store telephone numbers using a sequential Number Generator the statutes that were passed before the t cpa they use a bunch of different formulations for a number of them did address the technology and random sequential Number Generator. That is a real problem particularly you think about sequential number generation generating thousands of numbers you have to store them someplace in the fact they are using the equipment to store the numbers to create the distinct risk to Emergency Lines and cellular phones and peter lines. Can you comment on what youre reading creates . I dont think it has a surplus problem so on our side i dont think there is because if i talk about using a Power Generator to store ors electricity i dont thank you read that to be completely redundant i dont care if you use the electricity now or later so its not purely redundant. Justice gorsuch. What you said in the opinion the first potential reading. But the problem that it generates that everybody has recognize that it is awkward to speak of equipment storing anything using a random Number Generator. As Justice Kagan pointed out one potential response might be what judge barrett called the potential reading to say that the phrase using a sequential model generator modifies the object rather than the verb so storing the numbers to be called using a random Number Generator. Of course the problem is the. I feel that. Unit raise the fourth argument as a potential im not sure we need to put out what it make any difference to you and your clients in any real way with the First Alternative that could be a possibility . Justice gorsuch i think we would be available equally under the fourth alternative and as i stand here today i cannot think of a practical difference between the two formulating our arguments its hard to ignore the, the other reason to be candid if you dont think theres anything terribly anomalous about calling using a sequential Number Generator that i dont know why we think theyre so anomalous about storing numbers using a sequential Number Generator. But context is not the generator itself the does the calling of the storage but in those cases the generator is part of the storage process or the calling process. Very helpful, thank you. Justice kavanaugh, good morning mr. Clement i want to touch on what congress was getting at in 1991 just to make sure i understand the structure of the statute. Your point about calls to the home artificial or recorded limited. Why didnt Congress Also prohibit live telemarketing calls to the home do you think . I think its clear from the legislative history and the findings the reason they didnt in the home was out of respect the first amendment. When you get to the other category of calls, congress again debits the artificial or the recorded voice calls also live caller calls using the atd s so what was Congress Getting at with those calls in my right in thinking those are live caller calls covered by the atd s permission . There is some debate about that if you look at the legislative history there is some influence the reason and they targeted those specialized lines prohibiting in addition to the recorded voice calls when they didnt do the same for the Residential Land lines precisely because those were the lines particularly probable to number generation technology. Those recorded calls would have already been pivoted to number generation technology. Those recorded calls would have already been pivoted so that would have been using the atd s for the live caller call would only pay the only thing separate. Im not positive thats the way it is structured because it only covers the recorded voice calls with the business line and Emergency Line, those are prohibited. Thank you counsel. Just disparate. Will want artificial call. Thank you consult counsel. Mr. Clement the lower court said adopted your opponents interpretation that says liability isnt attached of the call is made for emergency purposes or a prior consent. They have pointed out under your interpretation that prior express consent doesnt work for the atd s im looking at the emergency purposes except into liability i wonder how the atd s or the artificial recorded voice device and make a call for emergency purposes . Just disparate you can imagine either one making a call it was a medical emergency or an individual at large in the community they were using this technology to provide a warning message it could be recorded to everybody in the jurisdiction. So you think it would . And wondering in an abundance of caution you can imagine why congress would not want any call for emergency purposes or with the express consent to give rise to liability but it may not mean there is a wise applicability for either one of those including Emergency Services that would deprive the objection that your interpretation renders prior consent but not great utility. I think its a narrow band of calls but those conceivably made with the atd s so that exception does have some force but if you read it as a whole its clear they are mostly in there for the day recorded artificial voice calls there is no exception with the one provision only for the atd s calls. One minute to wrap up. With respondent i would like to emphasize power reading both conjunctive firms are modified support have the specialized conducts of scope by contrast to capture the wide swath to produce using the Number Generator only has a narrow band of specialized conduct it is not been on the wall next to the mouse for everything under the sun or a specialized practice. Thats the second Problem Congress which permit every annoying call that can store and ill members of not have left it unprotected and 91 there were only 7 million cell phones now theres one representative member of congress was a landline they wanted to address Something BetterCongress Decision to leave the Residential Land lines unprotected would be inexplicable. Thank you mr. Counsel. Mr. Chief justice may please the court this case can and should begin with the statutory text under ordinary rules of grammar and construction the phrase using a random number sequential generator is best way to modify to store and produce now the court to discard those rules on the anti grammatical sense it cannot show the contextual probability of a grammatical meaning meeting with the approach also reported consequences a governments reading that has a limited role the definition plays both today and from the perspective of the 1991 congress regardless of how the core votes the world continually to prohibit verbal calls the fact in 1991 definition has universal devices no longer in use that has the court to adopt other than the most natural reading of the tex text. You began by saying this case because is the statutory text is a the plain meaning case . We think the interpretation offered here is by far the most natural reading of the text and the other case we havent gone so far as to pay in on the contrary approach would be possible we are reticent to foreclose to see the they had to say that i agree theres a real or contrary interpretation. That was a question. Not a statement. How do you react to the notion this will have disastrous consequences given in technology that has developed since Congress Passed the senate they should into on enter into consideration . I agree with my friend that should not be drive the course analysis. So as someone has suggested that narrow role they play in the statutory scheme that it only implicates the automated call restriction. Thank you mr. Ellis. Justice thomas. Thank you so to the point of the statute from 1991 and Current Technology with the cell phones 1991 they were the size of a loaf of bread and not widespread use people had car phones instead the industry has changed the technology is far beyond anything we could have conceived of 1991. At what point do we simply sa say, i understand the statutory construction and what we are attempting to do with the statute but at what point do the say it is ill fit for Current Technology . And one respect that may be true the best reading doesnt apply to a great deal of technology that is in use today that is evidenced and not the way to update the text. On the flipside as you suggest that the potential that the smartphones could be made unlawful i think is urging for the courts. For what i am asking is sometimes we use we make this great effort to interpret the statute intended for the use this one just the user in which we are operating. At what point do we simply say that quick. The courts approach should not change the right approaches to still engage with how it is written eventually that up to congress. Justice prior. One dash justice prior. I pass. I have two questions it doesnt make any sense to talk about with the Number Generator and second, with your interpretation dont you have to show that there are reward systems refuse such a generator they use it to produce the numbers . Otherwise it wouldnt cover storage so if you could cover those two in reverse order i would appreciate it. I would start with the letter. The statute can be read to cover the independent work but i will say i dont think that is a requirement for the court the court has recognized that sometimes it does adopt this approach and thats what they have done here and that it would lead the court to the ordinary rules of grammar or construction. As my friend acknowledged there are two ways to use random a number of sequential generators and in fact if you think about using the statute what that means it is better to create because that will not be in use of those have those numbers and never existed before and the real world. So is a list of numbers but changed about that idea . Its not strange to think of a sequential Number Generator that the numbers to be called but rather what it probably means is to offer up so every sequential Number Generator. From the beginning i have wondered could the tcp a lawsuit against smart phone users actually prevail given that they automatically dial numbers in the way a sequential numbering system does . It doesnt seem like it could be an automatic telephone dialing system is a the main reason for reading things that this law has not replied to the respondent . That could include smart phones as you suggest and that limits the circumstances but the second is it doesnt include the word problematic and if thats the right way to read the statute courts of appeals on both sides but its not there in the text and if you dont adopt that reading the that presents a serious problem. At the time the tcp a was enacted with the same general subject matter area. All of those have the autodialer doesnt is a gesture definition is wrong would Congress Really have wanted to depart from all of the statutes in this particular way . And with the same problem in a different way, it is true with all those devices beyond those the sequential Number Generators at all but two with those that are be recorded voice and then regulated congress came at the same problem in a different way and then to the residential lines regardless of the technology that was dialing. And with the sequential Number Generator. And is somewhere broader. Why is it congress would have adopted . And then to have these protective dialers but not when there was a live person on the line . What sense that have made from the recipient from the calls perspective . And then to deliver the automated system. I understand that but definitely they cover the protective dialers. Is that right quick. No. So i dont think the recorded voice is part of that. What about the recorded ways . There is. But the way is to serve time on the call when it is connected in a way to connect live operators. Good morning mr. Ellis. Two questions. First, think your argument depends upon the Congress Adopting the statute the word devices that use random Number Generators to store telephone number so what evidence do you have that exist in the world . Number two, the same question i posed the excellent open and call the fourth possible interpretation to understand the problems with that but it does overcome this difficulty. I am curious why it wasnt addressed and why we need to rule out. s legacy the first question there were devices in the world. And that automatic dialing system in 1991 using the Number Generator to the dialer to store them for dialing and i dont think its anything those generators to store those in the same way you might say i have a backup Power Generator that backup in stores for access or the way you might say i can use the web browser to do something more than just browsing the web. Asked for the latter, the possible interpretation we think it is not available. I understand that but thats a question. The consequences of that come its not the best reading. I understand that ms him a question. Does it make a difference . Yes it does. In the real world to understand and then calling in random order but thats not the problem the problem is that definition and the restriction calling indiscriminately and that would result in thats what congress is trying to get. Justice kavanaugh. Good morning. Justice thomas and justice so mayor and others have talked about the guilford of the statutory language to Current Technology. And i want to break that down one is the addition of our artificial week with these calls that covers the house with the specialized lines in that part still makes sense and applies today. Correct quick. Yes. Okay. Then you have the etps mission which only applies to the specialized lines not to the house go because artificial the recorded calls are already prohibited getting as something that artificial and recorded calls so what is that getting at, at the time with the real world problem and does that have any relevance at all today as Justice Thomas and sotomayor your were indicating . It may have addressing those be recorded calls. I will stop you right there getting to Justice Kagan do you think and instead of over and made a mistake . I dont think that. I think life calls could equally cause problems at all think we want telemarketers on the 911 line or bothering people there patient room or in 1991 making calls to cell phones which were unintentional at the time they would charge by the minute those parts of the problem are exacerbated but also caused by indiscriminate calls from the live operators. Mr. Ellis some of the lower courts have characterized this provision as ambiguous and with this situation and you and your colloquy with the chief justice suggested although the fcc only has a narrow band of authority you are not ruling that out either. So can you explain why that word apply here with those two conflicting deciding which is the best as i wouldve thought chevron when congress deliberately chooses openended or vague language it is delegated to the agency to make the choice that this provision does not strike me as how to regulate this. That is a fair question your honor in the chevron can say if the statute is ambiguous we have not address those issues here that there is an Outstanding Agency interpretation with the chevron deference or not that is a fair question. Thank you counsel. One minute to wrap up. I will close that the respondent identified those six reasons i dont think it has even if you disagree with and it took that approach even to discard the ordinary rules of grammar and construction. In light of the response its clear on page 37 and in his view drafted the definition to have all Technology Used with the automated calls does not clear the congressman include the provision at all than they could strike out not just one word but the entire phase of the Number Generator if not all of section 227 a1 a and then to reach the same universal device that is the fluidity of the court and we urge the court not to do so again. Thank you counsel. Mr. Chief justice may it please the court. Any method of interpretation contextualism or consequentialism favors affirmative commercial purposes overwhelmingly clear it is privacy only focus on text this involves an ordinary meaning of grandeur and cognition and for example to maintain to be developed using Eminent Domain nobody rules that we must maintain land using Eminent Domain the adverbial modifier links up with the verb choir as an ordinary meaning. Is the conjunctions and this conjunctive cannon to the state categories drawing and producing in the word order is significant. Second, the word store and or are real words only on our reading. Third, the harmonious reading cannon the consent provision makes little sense with random number generation plane consent known people. Fourth, the presumption against and effectiveness facebook of the into oblivion because they used word for numbers to annoy people just as they did in 1991 just five months and two days ago the court repeatedly said the act prohibits almost all solicited robo calls the borrowers numbers would have been stored the court had invalidated in that case now facebook argues for the across the board exemption effectively all autodialer calls are exempt they say this is called the pipeline one a vapor like one that kills the statute and privacy. Thank you mr. Garner. Do you agree that the objective is to settle upon the most natural meaning of the statutory language . Yes your honor. If these various rules those are pertinent we dont assume the ordinary speaker applies those cannons or rules of syntax quick. Thats correct your honor. And then to understand and using a spatula lifts the element out of the pn. Nobody stops to say do i have to use a spatula to lift the pn. So the most useful way is to take pole ordinary speakers of english to ask them what that means is that the most useful rule of construction and to take a poll of everybody that would be useful yes. So you say a facebook wins we will all be flooded with robo calls . Doesnt the statute independently bar the calls from the recorded voices that is where most ordinary speakers would regard as a robo call. The difference to have that legislative different set immediately people would be befuddled. They just werent. Lawyers to. But the point is that congress didnt write the legislation with the Technical Rules and mind and think ordinary speakers but not read them that way. So the most useful at first blush reading it and terms of how that makes sense most would have suggested friends on the other side. Your honor i respectfully disagree because the actual meaning of the words. If you just look at it mechanically and hastily, yes it is the way. As justice boseman said paraphrasing slightly the welldressed statute must be able to withstand the attacked by and intellect to skew the meaning and i think thats a problem. What significance does it make the ordinary speaker of english word have a very Different College background than in 1991 . Because of those advances in technology the social Media Companies are exactly where you are we know every mouseclick in the last 20 years and then that is carrying the handheld device remains the same. Justice thomas. Thank you mr. Chief justice. Taking off your last point, the technology has changed talk about the average person in most have no idea what some of the technology was in that most people would not realize caller id was cuttingedge and had to be purchased separately and most did not have cell phones in fact very few people did so technology has changed moving along very rapidly. And then to modern Technology Like facebook or instant messaging et cetera is under a sense of futility . Your honor i dont the average american is familiar with robo calls and understand that thes numbers they dont if they were randomly generated or sold because they gave the number to somebody in fact would be morphed the somebody they had dealt with entrusted sold their numbers. It doesnt have to be randomly generated anymore you make my point about technology in the old days it would be randomly generated because theres no way they could have that much information and use that instantaneously. In 1991 those that i hesitate to talk about legislative issues dont like talking about history but and the database came up over 200 times generators came up only four times in the whole legislative history. Thank you. Thank you Justice Breyer. As you read if they are using a phone. Is not quite right it has an automated dialing system. So using automatic. So you cant use the automatic system to store numbers was there a lot . Was there a lot more what was the situation . There was a database that was sold and also those automatically generated thats by those have become superseded. I got it. So at the time thats what you think they want to have it both ways. Yes your honor. So the world changes within that ordinary definition like cell phones. And automatic dialing. So thats broad and so do you narrow that . That is like the famous real world example like the endangered species so it is that dynamic meaning changing over time and then to expand the statute be here is it to contract the statute. Any comment . Reading that with the Number Generator which produces numbers with that specific technology. So to interpret that dynamically to adapt the changing circumstances looking at the context of how it has changed in order to decide how to do so there are a few words is there anything wrong with reading the statute with the change over time as technology changed and that context as at hand what do you think quick. I have no control with any justice that wants to do that. In your expert review what do you think. I am a proponent of that cannon but i do think the word store and or it almost makes Congress Look like what has happened in the last 29 years Congress Looks prescient saying store and for. Justice alito. And that courts should have the power to declare a statue obsolete and if we have that power it might be a good candidate but we havent going to so far and assuming that we dont fall prey the horribles with the advent of smart phones and social media think about the technology that existed at the time the statute was enacted it seems to provide the greatest practical problems for your interpretation is Call Forwarding which was widely available once enacted. Is not covered under your interpretation . No. In fact a normal cell phone in normal use would have to be altered significantly to be an autodialer but that makes it something that is not automatic anything with a push of a button to send a message , automatic dialing is preprogrammed to send messages automatically without human involvement. Isnt it true everything that computers do at some point require some degree of human intervention or instruction . That is true your honor that involves human involvement but selecting of the number to be called thats the human intervention immediate placement the fcc and the aca and the dc circuit 11 circuit have all held human intervention and does exclude those calls from atps. What about the human interventionist required . Pressing buttons, human being placing or sending a message or placing the call and the direct placement of the call. Thank you. Justice sotomayor your. Counsel if we really your wa way, the consequences that every cell phone owner would be subject to the harsh criminal and civil penalties. Into automatic dialers. There should be no more unavailing than the realization all of us have hundreds of Deadly Weapons in our homes. Lawabiding americans dont use them that way. Telephone users will do what . It isnt a normal function on a cell phone. I do email les with friends and face time and things of that nature basically automatic dialing and people joined together by that process so i dont believe we should believe that our interpretation couldnt affect the development of new technology to help people do things more quickly. But in the process ended up filing it in the statute. A. Like the dc circuit itd this claims the result of normal uses would produce liability. But there is a question of functional equivalence and the prohibition speaks of consent the difference between text messaging groups and friends is everybody has a consent that there isnt a problem but the difficulty is when peoples privacy is being. You started off by some kind of stature or sentences where the meaning of the word is still clear rapid pace and that might well be. But would you at least acknowledge what you are asking us to adopt have a shared direct object and numbers to be called and then a modifier. Setting aside the semantics for a moment, do you agree the grammar favors facebook . I dont think theres anything ungrammatical. Its unusual syntax that shows the incident variety English Speakers can divide just like a spatula left the spatula and told the pan, there is no grammar that would render this ungrammatical. Perhaps a little awkward but not ungrammatical. You took out the shared direct object and that the placement of the using a random message generator so you considerably clean that up i would say to acquire the land to be developed using Eminent Domain. Thats one where i think the point made sometimes grammar has to give way because the meaning is so clear and it is so clear because you cant imagine the Eminent Domain being used to maintain land and for the argument what does it mean i think in the point the meaning here is not so impossible. Thertheres a little bit of awkwardness, but that can be explained by looking at the kind that existed at the time that generated the numbers. So, that meaning is possible is there any proper way for reading the sentence, to me if you look at the sentence it seems clear from the text itself that congress was concerned about no numbers previously no numbers obtained from any source. Those are stored and those that are not previously known but are generated by one of these machines that covers the universe of numbers and the wording therefore makes sense. Another thing i might mention is that some we all know what computer storage is but a word like produced if you say they produced the numbers you think what does that mean. Its sort of like a sentence the bird chirps and lies. We know what this means, but what do you mean lies, what it lie comfortably and it in its m. We wouldnt think comfortably modifies chirps. Its that kind of modifier to explain what we mean. Computer production could see the manufacturer of it just doesnt seem complete. Justice. Justice. Good morning, mr. Garner. You can see that the grammar is awkward but i would like to pick up where the justice laid left off. It doesnt exhaust meaning, okay, fine but on what basis. Its less awkward if it were given to you and when we look at this phrase there is nothing to indicate in the statute that it modifies only one and it usually indicates when you have a clause like that, that would modify both of the prior groups. That is one you sometimes find as an exception. That is about the only place and you find that only in the law books. But the point is simply that we must look at the semantic content of the words. We dont take it as everything before it gets modified. Let me ask you this in response to the Justice Alito talking about what happens if we would interpret the statute your way and i guess im still a little unclear about the answer. If it is totally divorced from the sequential generator and then to dial such a number would seem to be enough. Others are worried about the contemporary cell phones that can do that but even at the time of the statutes adoption there were almost a captured number dialed and you could press redial and that was calm and evecommon evenin the 19 90s i. Why wouldnt this statute make a criminal of us all . Each of those actions i understand its to push the redial button, but what way does the statute requires that under the reading . To make sense of the provision. All it says is you have to have equipment that stores the number and can be used to dial the number and excludes human actuation as a part of the equipment. That is the word being defined. Its not the capacity to store. It has to have the capacity to dial now we are really changing the grammar. That is in the definition of the capacity. Nobody doubts the button has a capacity to redial a certain number. It is not considered automatic. When you place the call if you press the button congress could define it to mean anything it wishes so it could define it to mean whatever it wishes which means that if it had the capacity. And the equipment itself. A. You are putting a lot of words there. I dont think so, your honor. Im looking at the definition itself. The term means equipment and has the capacity to dial such numbers. Its the equipment that dials and the word automatic is the word being defined. Thats where the courts and fcc have gotten the idea its so critical thank you mr. Chief justice and mr. Garner. The case will depend heavily on the text that has been covered in the briefs and other questions i want to ask more questions to understand how this worked if we agree with the other side, they are still prohibited, meaning the artificial or prerecorded calls. That part is not affected. That part of the statute isnt obsolete at all and thats part of the statute even if you were to lose we will still operate to the homes or cell phones unless an exception applies. I dont believe that is correct. Robo calls are defined to include all violations of the statute. Assume i am using it to mean artificial or prerecorded. If i use it that way that part of the statute is not an issue in this case. That part will still apply even if you were to lose the case. Then you said the purpose, i think you started with the purpose of this separate addition this provision in particular and the problem with the structure of the statute that creates is that the prohibition doesnt apply to all and that suggests about something other than privacy. How do you respond to that . The residence did prohibit those prerecorded calls and they also have a do not call list that they are protected by. The pagers and emergency numbers and so on was a do not call mandate across the board, unless you have consent or its an emergency and there were reasons perhaps for this one is that they are carried on a person and therefore with you at all times and they receive Text Messages and residential lysed dont and people were having to pay and some people do still by the way on some plans but as one of the opinions said in 1991, the cell phone owner not only suffered the pleasure of receiving the calls but also paid for the privilege. You referenced in the brief state statutes those prohibited at the time the technology combined with prerecorded or artificial messages and congress severed those two things and separately prohibited the prerecorded artificial messages and separately even with a live operator presumably. Doesnt that suggest the state statutes are not especially . I think they are worth looking at for example the placement of using and artificial sequential Number Generator. But there was a great deal of variation among the states and what we ended up with is a federal statute that is very nuanced and that represents a great many legislative compromises. Thank you very much. You have in a number of response to these questions you asked about the need for human intervention and response to the justice you talked about the finger heading and stored number in the phone. What about using the auto reply function so i can set that up and say do not disturb me, im driving or im sleeping and i can program the phone and its not special software to my favorites or my contacts. Is that the necessary human intervention . Im not pressing the button each time. The communication is prompted by the person i asked about human intervention. Is that considered human intervention . I think that is a different circumstance. We are actually programming it with mom involved human intervention but the consent provision. I didnt ask whether it was covered by the statute. I asked about the human intervention because of the argument leans on the idea that human intervention means we are pressing the buttons on the phone that automatically make the call and obviously human intervention is present at some point and of the opponents on the lower court have said it seems like the auto reply function would be brought within the statute and im not asking for all of the arguments, only about the intervention point. Would that be enough by using the auto reply function does that count as human intervention . Your honor, i dont believe it is. And how can you tell when its close enough . There are difficult cases and i think it is consent. A. I want to ask you about something else. You talked in your brief about the concept and im wondering whether you can identify any case because your opponents say there is none. I ask because it strikes me as the kind that might make sense when one interprets the literary language. You leaned heavily on this idea that the ordinary line that would make sense to people is beneath this to give it a different name. Is that a legal concept . You dont talk about it in the law but you talk about it in the modern usage that has a broad range of the problems. Is it a legal concept that if appropriately applied in the law . It is a linguistic concept that has been often recognized in the law and in fact the court has frequently said we go by the sense of the word more than by some rules of grammar. Is that a proposition that you would endorse it seems like a going through the purpose of the statute would be contrary to the interpretation that you have endorsed in other contexts. I do not endorse that broadly as it appears and i dont endorse it broadly and yet it does recognize we must look at the word to understand the sentence on facebooks reading it would have been possible to download the entire phonebook and autodial every number with impunity, thousands per minute and as long as you store the number on a floppy disk or hard drive just dont store them on algorithmic generators a piece of equipment not even meant for storage the statute never sensibly meant that. The case isnt about cell phones calling. Its about them being called and Computer Systems that send out millions of illegal calls and messages per day. But the targeted nonconsensual calls. The court said debt collectors are not free to send in a robot and now facebook wants to free them up for unsolicited calls. We urge the court to. Thank you mr. Chief justice the plan point has been made tht theres some awkwardness using a random or sequential Number Generator its not technologically impossible and the world makes sense just like dialing a random number. Anything that uses a random generator will produce the numbers but talking about this here theres a greater problem on the responsive side of the case because they would essentially read the words using a random or sequential Number Generator and you cant read this particularly when you understand the limited scope of the prohibitions without thinking theres a discussion about how automatic it needs to be. There are two points to make about that. First of the and verb automatically is a phrase without human intervention and none of those phrases seem to match and what is in the statute gives a sequential Number Generator. But even if you read that word into the statute it doesnt solve the problem. If i say dial a number from one of my contacts that is about as automatically dialing guess. Even back in 1991 it was just this automatic because they were getting one line and it would automatically forge into another and you could be looking at a a lot of liability under the tc pa. 1991 is what is most important for interpreting the statute itself and if you look at that things that even existed in 1991 the problem was raised and the response the statute of those te not covered because they dont use a random or sequential Number Generator. If you look at the testimony before congress in 1991 it is telling the direct Marketing Association did oppose the automatic prohibition because that isnt what they were doing even though they were using that lists. They made these automatic dialing systems a random sequential device. It may be relevant particularly for the constitutional avoidance so for those reasons we ask that you reverse the ninth circuit. Thank you counsel. The case is submitted. Now is the perfect time to buy cspan products with a 15 discount. Go to the cspan store. Org. House appropriations subcommittee hearing on Abortion Access the witnesses are specifically asked about the impact of the Hyde Amendment a legislative provision that prohibits federally funded abortions. This is just over two and a half hours. Good morning and to all, let me welcome the witnesses today. We are going to examine the impact on women thinking abortion but are denied because of an inability to pay. This is the law of the land that for too long women in the country have been denied their right to an abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory policy. And for more than 40 years it has been routinely extended every year as a legislative writer. But the time has come in this cuen