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
Thank you mr. Chief justice and may i please the court. The basic prescription on automated calls to cell phones in the years that followed dave field the constitutionality in the content of natural restriction on the use of calling technologies consumers found particularly intrusive and annoying. Congress enacted the exception in 2015 did not introduce any constitutional infirmity into the statutory scheme that exception is limited to the category of calls that intrude less severely on Consumer Privacy than does the typical automated call into the countervailing interest in protecting. Theres been a good deal of back and forth about whether respondents challenge the exception or the general automated call restriction and in circumstances because therere isnt a right or wrong way. There is simply here we think both challenges could have been both but would fail. Id like to focus first on the challenge the respondent is asserting that is a challenge to the automated restriction into 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
Good afternoon. I am senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and i will be your host today. Has a very distinguished resume, which you can find at the department of justice website. Before we get started i have two requests. One is is if you could take your cell phones and put it on silent mode so that we dont have unnecessary interruptions of that sort. The second is for the q a session we will have cards that you can write questions, and those cards are going to be passed around and you can write your questions. They will be collected and i will sort through those. We particularly would like to welcome our cspan guests and other guests that are watching through various video links, as well as our online guests who are watching at the hudson website. For online and for our video guests, you, too, can submit questions, submit them to hashtag pets and events in those questions will be collected hudson events. Assistant attorney general delrahim computer had a distinguished tenure that has
[inaudible conversations] good afternoon. My name is harold furchtgottroth, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and i will be your host today. Thank you so much for joining us. We are very pleased and honored to have witnessed the honorable makan delrahim, the assistant attorney general at the u. S. Department of justice. He needs to introduction, and he has been working around issues related to antitrust for a great deal of time. He has a very distinguished resume which you can find at the department of justice website. Before we get started i have two requests. One is if you take your cell phone and put it on silent mode so that we dont have unnecessary interruptions of that sort. The second is for the q a session we will have cards that you can write questions, and those cards are going to be passed around and you can write your questions. They will be collected and i will sort through those. We particularly would like to welcome our cspan guests and or other guests that are watch