Thank you, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. In 1991, congress enacted the tcpas basic restriction on the placement of automated calls to cell phones. In the years that followed lower courts consistently upheld the constitutionality of that restriction as a contact neutral restriction on the use of calling technologies consumers found particularly intrusive and annoying and the Congress Debt exception in 2015 did not introduce any constitution infirmity into the statutory scheme and that exception is limit to a narrow category of calls that intrude less on Consumer Privacy than the typical automated call and that serve an important counterveiling interest in protecting the federal fisk. Theres been a good deal back and forth in the briefs whether sponedents challenge is properly viewed as one to the exception or to the general automated call restriction. And i think in circumstances like this theres not a right way or wrong way, not a right or wrong challenge to bring, the
Congress did not introduce any constitutional infirmity into the statutory scheme. That exception is limited to a narrow category of calls less severely on Consumer Privacy than does the typical automated call and serve a countervailing interest. Theres been a good deal of backandforth about whether responding to challenges exceptioniewed as the or the general automated call. I think in steer circumstances like this is not a wrong way or wrong way, there simply two conceptually distinct analytical ways of challenging a law that includes a basic prescription. Here we think both challenges couldve been brought in both would fail. Id like to focus on the asserting,hich it is the challenge respondents are asking the court to focus on. The challenge on the automated call restriction. The theory is the government exception taken in combination with other aspects of the statutory scheme prevents the automated call restriction from performing its Consumer Protection function. The firstld under
These had application to the issue that were here before your honor today. The first has nothing to do nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. Some of these are relating to aspiring for broad language of outstanding language to prosecutors. Point taken. If there are more keep going. As it relates to one of the cases referenced here earlier, and is also referenced in some of the briefing by Defense Counsel is georgia 542 and all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call cat category, is about an attorney who formally prosecuted a defendant is the same type of case or similar charges. That is why the courts found the disqualification would be necessary because of the relationship that existed between the former client and the person being prosecuted now. The next series of slides goes through what has been addressed as it relates to the standard that is required when dealing with the issue of disqualification and the state would submit to the court that the defense
Of the cases that Defense Counsel had cited within their brief that had absolutely no application to the issue that were here before, your honor, today. The first mciver be state has nothing to do. Has nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. I think some of these are just relating to kind of aspiring for broad language about standards to prosecutors. So point taken there but if theyre more all right. Keep it on so as it relates to one of the cases that was referenced here earlier. And as i was also referenced in some of the briefing by Defense Counsel, is the were just savy state, which is to 87 georgia, 542. And ill all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call category is about a attorney who formerly prosecuted a defendant in i guess the same type of case are the same case or similar charges. And that would be why of course, were using the courts found that disqualification would be necessary because of the Relations Kinship that existed between a former client
Vice president Kamala Harris of asserts the theory behind new Education Standards in florida. Specifically about teaching that some enslaved people actually benefited from their bondage. She says that replacing black history with lies. We will unpack the settling unsettling response from desantis. I am symone sanderstownsend, i know you missed me and i have something to say. History moves fast, just 109 days, ago a u. S. President current or former had never been indicted. Now, we may see it happen for a third time to the same person. Former president donald trump. And that has unprecedented implications for the 2024 president ial election. On sunday, the former president received a matter from national jacks mitt. Informing trump that he is the target of the federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Nbc news reports that the letter mentioned three statutes related to the defamation of rights. Conspiracy to defraud the United States, and tampering with a witness