“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A consumer filed a class action against the RNC for unwanted sending of text messages containing video files, which he contended was in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
What happened in this case?
During the final weeks of the 2020 Presidential campaign, Arizona resident Jacob Howard received a text message from the RNC. The text contained a video file featuring Ivanka Trump urging people to vote for Trump. Howard believed the message was an invasion of his privacy, since he had not provided his number or given permission to receive such a solicitation, and filed a federal class action under the TCPA against the RNC.
The district court dismissed the case as a matter of law, concluding that the RNC did not violate the TCPA. Howard appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which issued a 2-1 decision against him by Trump Judge Daniel Collins and Reagan District Judge Sidney Fitzwater in January 2026 in Howard v RNC. Clinton Judge Johnnie Rawlinson dissented.
How did Trump judge Collins rule?
Judge Collins wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Fitzwater, that affirmed the ruling against the TCPA complaint. They contended that a call does not violate the TCPA when, as in this case, the call does not start with the playing of a video or prerecorded voice and a caller must press a button or otherwise elect to actually hear it.
What did Judge Rawlinson say in dissent?
Judge Rawlinson strongly dissented. She explained that the “plain terms” of the statute say nothing about the offending call actually starting with the prerecorded video or voice. Instead, she went on, it requires only that the offending call contains the “artificial prerecorded voice.” She noted that past precedent said the same, and that her interpretation was important to help ensure that the TCPA achieves its “intended” purpose to protect consumers from “unwanted automated telephone calls and messages.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision by Trump judge Collins not only prevents Jacob Howard from getting relief under the TCPA, but also limits the scope and coverage of the consumer protection law, at least in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon. It deprives consumers of important rights under the TCPA. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.