In a historic first, the sound of a toilet flushing was heard in the background of Supreme Court oral arguments

• For the first time in American history, the US Supreme Court is holding publicly broadcasted oral arguments by teleconference to hear cases during the coronavirus pandemic.
• In another historical first, a toilet could be heard flushing in the background of Wednesday's oral arguments, in the case of Barr and the FCC vs. the American Association of Political Consultants.
• The toilet flush and other background noise could be heard as Roman Martinez, an attorney for the AAPC, was presenting arguments.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

For the first time in American history, the US Supreme Court is holding publicly broadcasted oral arguments by teleconference so cases can be heard during the coronavirus pandemic.

For many Americans, the transition to conducting business almost entirely by phone or videoconference has led to some awkward — and messy — situations. This morning, the Supreme Court learned that it was no exception.

In a historical first, a toilet could be heard flushing in the background of Wednesday's oral arguments in the case of Attorney General William Barr and the Federal Communications Commission vs. the American Association of Political Consultants.

The toilet flush and other background noise could be heard as Roman Martinez, an attorney for the AAPC, was presenting arguments. The noise did not appear to come from Martinez's line, but from another unmuted person on the teleconference.

In the case, the AAPC is challenging a provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 that seeks to reduce the prevalence of unwanted robocalls by banning companies or other groups from making auto-dialed, pre-recorded phone calls except in cases of emergency, if the other party consents to receive such calls, or to collect debts owed to the US government.

The AAPC, a trade group that represents political consultants who could benefit from loosened restrictions around automatic, pre-recorded calling, is arguing that the current bans for most automated calls violate the free speech protections in the First Amendment, according to Oyez.