Can someone pls explain why the government has standing to petition in Barr v. AAPC, No. 10-631, to be argued 04/22? Court of appeals held that TCPA "robocall" prohibition was unconstitutional b/c of exemption for certain debt-collection calls ... /1
#appellatetwitter #scotus
#appellatetwitter #scotus
... but purported to remedy the content discrimination by "invalidating" the exemption, so that debt-collection calls would also be prohibited--i.e., the court purported to make the prohibition *broader.* There's an interesting question in the case about whether a court ... /2
... has the power to issue such a "remedy" extending the scope of a speech restriction beyond what Congress provided. But why is the government injured by the holding? Judgment is in its favor--the plaintiff group that brought the case won't receive the requested relief ... /3
... and will still be barred from making robocalls. And the USG isn't enjoined from bringing all the prosecutions it otherwise would have--or enjoined from doing anything at all, for that matter. So why can it (rather than the plaintiff) petition to challenge the judgment?
