And to emergency and cellular lines but not to residential lines. Under wellestablished rules of statutory construction the entire phrase to be called sequential Number Generator that has a statue of impossible between the definition and the targeted mission under ordinary rules of grammar that modifier not just a second and so those of the disparate impact reinforces that conclusion first it is set off by that, modified by the verb and second a direct object the direct object of those telephone numbers to be called in those were significant judicial that. And then to the Residential Land line. From those in 1991. And with those multiple business lines that were in with those and if they were really aiming at those calls from devices the failure to protect the hope would be inexplicable. Mr. Clement your friend on the other side says we should look at the passage and not to the rules of syntax. I know you were dispute about the passage but as a general matter he is right . The drafters here were not following the redondo singular or to diagram a sentence so why should we focus on syntax to the extent i think both parties do . I think because the other way lies madness with all due respect. One deviates from the rules of ordinary grammar and statutory construction that essentially to empower the judiciary to rewrite the statutes the respect to my friends on the other side thats at the invite you to do here. I think congress had a very specific problem in this position and it was successful to eradicate and my friend would like to use the sense of the statute to reap us the mission to address modern ill. Its clear they didnt have in mind the modern ills that would lead to a disaster of his interpretation were not opted is that something we should consider at all . I dont think its something you should really consider and it gives very little credence to congress his own ability to address these in an ongoing way and Congress Passed another statute to direct the problem telemarketing calls and what it did was to create a process where the technology we use with their home phones and cellular phones it is self please call. Thank you counsel Justice Thomas. Thank you mr. Chief justice. Thank you mr. Chief justice. This isnt central to your case, but i am interested in why a text message is considered a call under the t cpa . That is an excellent question Justice Thomas and i think it is another way in which the courts have essentially updated the statute to keep up with the times its not at all clear a statue directed not just our calls but also in particular artificial or the recorded voice calls is not even a text at all and if one word hold to voice calls and not the text that would be an alternative route for pulling in her favor in this case the other thing i would point to there is the amicus brief to the Washington Legal Foundation that has reference this specifically and what they point out in more recent statutes when Congress Addresses a call or a text they do so to get a real evidence to talk about the text as a call but the text that is received. When we talk about a Number Generator under the t cpa, are we talking about a device or process . Perhaps it makes more sense of it is a device. What is your thought on that quick. Justice thomas, likely bed as the process as a part of equipment. So maybe you have in mind a Computer Program that has a number as the Number Generator than dials the number. Justice breyer. My only question in light of your answer to the chief justice i think if you say your friends definition that would be unlawful for a person to use a cell phone. Like an Emergency Hospital number to make a call to the Emergency Line of the hospital . Is that right quick. Thats right Justice Breyer. Are you telling the chief justice that is irrelevant . No i didnt mean to say that is irrelevant. What you say thats really important . It does have a very peculiar or weird result it does have something to do with the interpretation . Absolutely. I was just responding to the idea rather than results produced by the words and their syntax would restart creeping into the city says which that is in you. Circles by dont think thats featured in this courts cases. I think the general point for all general purposes they are all relevant and in this case in my opinion you have a a strong case on the consequences. Obviously Justice Breyer there is a range of views on this court how you look beyond the text of the consequences i think your text and consequences played part of that of the past. Justice alito. Sorry. The statutory phrase we have to interpret in this phrase has a structure that is fairly common to activities to produce telephone numbers followed by a modifying phrase do you think that Number Generator those who hear them or read them understand what they mean without looking at a treatise of interpretation but they do that by asking what makes sense. I give a lot of examples but i have very little time for questioning. They ask about the sense of it they get to the arcane stuff. So does it make any sense with a list of telephone numbers using a random or sequential Number Generator . The best answer i can find in the brief is that there were systems that produced a list of numbers using such a generator and then stored them but unless you can explain how the generator was used in the process of storing the numbers, think we have a proble problem. Justice alito, two quick things i do think readers have the advantage over listeners because they can look at the actuation and they do think it is important but the heart of your question, dont think there is anything nonsensical or redundant about talking about using a random Number Generator to store numbers its no different in with the phase a lot of people would use to describe the provision of dialing of numbers using random Number Generator. In both i think they are sensible it just means youre using the Number Generator. Not use the actual dialing or storing the process to store telephone numbers or the process of dialing numbers to be called to if you understand the terms in that way it is. Accents to get the idea congress was trying to prohibit the use of the Number Generator for immediate dialing to be produced or captured. Mr. Clement with the other side once it would cover too many devices. Is the issue with the interpretation more with the t cpa being outdated if it was past 30 years ago self posted not even exist for today is to references pagers. But you are right to know today almost all have the ability to store for numbers of congress wanted to do was stop call that was automatic and thats what it would accomplish would it be out on their job to bring it in line with the times . Justice certainly i deafly think its congresses job to update the statute now think it only materializes with the modern smart phone. The basic problem is and Technology People in 1991 like speed dialing or Call Forwarding the capacity to store the number of the fcc confronted that in 1992 rule that says dont worry about speed dialing for Call Forwarding does not cover the is covered because it doesnt use a sequential Number Generator so the entire history is been read way too broadly and since the very beginning the sensible way to avoid that outcome is to use a sequential Number Generator to modify to store and produce. I would like to give you a hypothetical along the lines of Justice Alito it is illegal to stab or shoot another person using a firearm. What i be covered if i stab somebody with a knife . I say the word is to use the bayonet but i think that gets to use the sense that you provided in the Supreme Court decision in the health case there are certain combinations of words where the mind would also the combination of the two words and they are it is very clear dealing with a bayonet using stabbing somebody with a firearm without leftdoublequote stick impossibility using equipment to store telephone numbers using a sequential Number Generator the statutes that were passed before the t cpa they use a bunch of different formulations for a number of them did address the technology and random sequential Number Generator. That is a real problem particularly you think about sequential number generation generating thousands of numbers you have to store them someplace in the fact they are using the equipment to store the numbers to create the distinct risk to Emergency Lines and cellular phones and peter lines. Can you comment on what youre reading creates . I dont think it has a surplus problem so on our side i dont think there is because if i talk about using a Power Generator to store ors electricity i dont thank you read that to be completely redundant i dont care if you use the electricity now or later so its not purely redundant. Justice gorsuch. What you said in the opinion the first potential reading. But the problem that it generates that everybody has recognize that it is awkward to speak of equipment storing anything using a random Number Generator. As Justice Kagan pointed out one potential response might be what judge barrett called the potential reading to say that the phrase using a sequential model generator modifies the object rather than the verb so storing the numbers to be called using a random Number Generator. Of course the problem is the. I feel that. Unit raise the fourth argument as a potential im not sure we need to put out what it make any difference to you and your clients in any real way with the First Alternative that could be a possibility . Justice gorsuch i think we would be available equally under the fourth alternative and as i stand here today i cannot think of a practical difference between the two formulating our arguments its hard to ignore the, the other reason to be candid if you dont think theres anything terribly anomalous about calling using a sequential Number Generator that i dont know why we think theyre so anomalous about storing numbers using a sequential Number Generator. But context is not the generator itself the does the calling of the storage but in those cases the generator is part of the storage process or the calling process. Very helpful, thank you. Justice kavanaugh, good morning mr. Clement i want to touch on what congress was getting at in 1991 just to make sure i understand the structure of the statute. Your point about calls to the home artificial or recorded limited. Why didnt Congress Also prohibit live telemarketing calls to the home do you think . I think its clear from the legislative history and the findings the reason they didnt in the home was out of respect the first amendment. When you get to the other category of calls, congress again debits the artificial or the recorded voice calls also live caller calls using the atd s so what was Congress Getting at with those calls in my right in thinking those are live caller calls covered by the atd s permission . There is some debate about that if you look at the legislative history there is some influence the reason and they targeted those specialized lines prohibiting in addition to the recorded voice calls when they didnt do the same for the Residential Land lines precisely because those were the lines particularly probable to number generation technology. Those recorded calls would have already been pivoted to number generation technology. Those recorded calls would have already been pivoted so that would have been using the atd s for the live caller call would only pay the only thing separate. Im not positive thats the way it is structured because it only covers the recorded voice calls with the business line and Emergency Line, those are prohibited. Thank you counsel. Just disparate. Will want artificial call. Thank you consult counsel. Mr. Clement the lower court said adopted your opponents interpretation that says liability isnt attached of the call is made for emergency purposes or a prior consent. They have pointed out under your interpretation that prior express consent doesnt work for the atd s im looking at the emergency purposes except into liability i wonder how the atd s or the artificial recorded voice device and make a call for emergency purposes . Just disparate you can imagine either one making a call it was a medical emergency or an individual at large in the community they were using this technology to provide a warning message it could be recorded to everybody in the jurisdiction. So you think it would . And wondering in an abundance of caution you can imagine why congress would not want any call for emergency purposes or with the express consent to give rise to liability but it may not mean there is a wise applicability for either one of those including Emergency Services that would deprive the objection that your interpretation renders prior consent but not great utility. I think its a narrow band of calls but those conceivably made with the atd s so that exception does have some force but if you read it as a whole its clear they are mostly in there for the day recorded artificial voice calls there is no exception with the one provision only for the atd s calls. One minute to wrap up. With respondent i would like to emphasize power reading both conjunctive firms are modified support have the specialized conducts of scope by contrast to capture the wide swath to produce using the Number Generator only has a narrow band of specialized conduct it is not been on the wall next to the mouse for everything under the sun or a specialized practice. Thats the second Problem Congress which permit every annoying call that can store and ill members of not have left it unprotected and 91 there were only 7 million cell phones now theres one representative member of congress was a landline they wanted to address Something BetterCongress Decision to leave the Residential Land lines unprotected would be inexplicable. Thank you mr. Counsel. Mr. Chief justice may please the court this case can and should begin with the statutory text under ordinary rules of grammar and construction the phrase using a random number sequential generator is best way to modify to store and produce now the court to discard those rules on the anti grammatical sense it cannot show the contextual probability of a grammatical meaning meeting with the approach also reported consequences a governments reading that has a limited role the definition plays both today and from the perspective of the 1991 congress regardless of how the core votes the world continually to prohibit verbal calls the fact in 1991 definition has universal devices no longer in use that has the court to adopt other than the most natural reading of the tex text. You began by saying this case because is the statutory text is a the plain meaning case . We think the interpretation offered here is by far the most natural reading of the text and the other case we havent gone so far as to pay in on the contrary approach would be possible we are reticent to foreclose to see the they had to say that i agree theres a real or contrary interpretation. That was a question. Not a statement. How do you react to the notion this will have disastrous consequences given in technology that has developed since Congress Passed the senate they should into on enter into consideration . I agree with my friend that should not be drive the course analysis. So as someone has suggested that narrow role they play in the statutory scheme that it only implicates the automated call restriction. Thank you mr. Ellis. Justice thomas. Thank you so to the point of the statute from 1991 and Current Technology with the cell phones 1991 they were the size of a loaf of bread and not widespread use people had car phones instead the industry has changed the technology is far beyond anything we could have conceived of 1991. At what point do we simply sa say, i understand the statutory construction and what we are attempting to do with the statute but at what point do the say it is ill fit for Current Technology . And one respect that may be true the best reading doesnt apply to a great deal of technology that is in use today that is evidenced and not the way to update the text. On the flipside as you suggest that the potential that the smartphones could be made unlawful i think is urging for the courts. For what i am asking is sometimes we use we make this great effort to interpret the statute intended for the use this one just the user in which we are operating. At what point do we simply say that quick. The courts approach should not change the right approaches to still engage with how it is written eventually that up to congress. Justice prior. One dash justice prior. I pass. I have two questions it doesnt make any sense to talk about with the Number Generator and second, with your interpretation dont you have to show that there are reward systems refuse such a generator they use it to produce the numbers . Otherwise it wouldnt cover storage so