United States Fourth Circuit

In a case brought by a Republican political consultant challenging South Carolina's anti-robocall statute on First Amendment grounds and alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed where: 1) the anti-robocall statute is a content-based regulation that does not survive strict scrutiny; and 2) vacated and remanded for dismissal as to the compelled-speech claim, where plaintiff lacks standing to bring compelled-speech and vagueness challenges.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/06/2015
• Published 08/06/2015

Judges

• Diaz

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel