Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (19-511)

argument 19-511

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 22m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core dispute over the definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) in Facebook v. Duguid?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case nineteen five eleven, Facebook versus Dugood. Mr Clement.

Unknown 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The TCPA defines an automatic telephone dialing system as equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such number. The statute prohibits calls using an ATDS to emergency and cellular lines, but not to residential lines. Under well-established rules of grammar and statutory construction, the entire phrase, telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, applies to both disjunctive verbs, store or produce. The contrary reading covers any device that can store and dial numbers, even without the use of a random or sequential number generator.

Unknown 0:52

That reading creates a statute of impossible breath and a fundamental mismatch between the ATDS definition and the targeted ATDS prohibition. Under ordinary rules of grammar, a restrictive modifier that follows two disjunctive verbs modifies both, not just the second one. Three features of the statutory text here reinforce that conclusion. First, the punctuation. The modifying phrase here is set off by a comma, which indicates that the phrase modifies both verbs. Second, the shared direct object. The direct object that follows produce, telephone numbers to be called, concededly applies equally to store as well as produce. Having some, but not all, of the text that follows produce refer back to store requires a significant judicial rewrite.

Unknown 1:39

Third, the scope of the ATBS prohibition. They do not prevent ATDS calls to the residential land lines used by most Americans in 1991. Instead, they target only the specialized lines, emergency, cellular, and multiple business lines that were distinctly vulnerable to random and sequential dialing. That limited scope makes sense as a targeted response to the problems of random or sequential dialing. But if Congress were really aiming at annoying calls from devices that could store and dial numbers, its failure to protect the home front would be inexplicable.

John G. Roberts 2:14

Mr. Clement, uh your friend on the other side uh says that we ought to look to the sense of the passage and not to rules of of syntax. I know you have a dispute about what the sense of the passage is, but as a general matter, he's right, isn't he? I mean the drafters here weren't following the the rule of redondos singular singulus or diagramming these sentences. So why why should we focus on on syntax to the extent that I think uh both parties do?

Unknown 2:46

Well, Your Honor, I think because the other way lies madness, with all due respect. I mean, I think if one deviates from the rules of sort of ordinary grammar and statutory construction, then there becomes so much play in the joints that you uh essentially empower the judiciary to rewrite statutes. And with all re respect to my friends on the other side, I think that's really what they invite you to do here. I think Congress targeted a very specific problem in this provision, a problem that was prevalent in nineteen ninety one. I think it was successful in eradicating that specific technology, and my friend would like to use the senesis or the sense of the statute to repurpose the statutory pro prohibition to address more modern ills.

John G. Roberts 3:32

Well, it's clear that they didn't have in mind the modern ills, as as you say, and the modern ills, at least according to your friend, um uh would lead to a disaster um uh if uh his interpretation weren't uh weren't adopted. Is that something we should consider at all?

Unknown 3:50

don't think it's something you should really consider and I think it gives too little credence to Congress's own ability to address these problems in an ongoing way. As recently as twenty nineteen, Congress passed another statute addressed to the problem of excessive telemarketing calls. One of the things that that act did is to try to create a process where the technology we use in our home phones and our cellular phones would itself block these kind of unwanted calls.