Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call
The Supreme Court protects disclosure of a call by recipients who did not participate in its illegal interception. The majority emphasizes public concern; the dissent stresses privacy and the incentive for others to intercept communications.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The majority and dissent disagree over whether the First Amendment shields publication of this intercepted call from liability.
The May 21, 2001 ruling concerns truthful public-concern material and publishers who played no part in the interception. Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor concur on narrower grounds that emphasize the competing interests and an apparent threat of physical harm in the call.
Those factual predicates were accepted for the legal question presented at that stage of the case. The ruling does not give journalists permission to hack, procure unlawful interception or publish every private recording. The ACLU welcomed the publication holding while opposing illegal interception.
People in this case
John Paul StevensCommented
William H. RehnquistCommented
Timeline
1 timeline entry on this page. Dates: May 21, 2001
May 2001
The Supreme Court protects the disclosures in Bartnicki
The Court rules 6-3 for the publishers under the facts accepted for the question presented.
[01]Supreme Court of the United States
The opinions consider publication by recipients who did not participate in the interception, lawfully received the tape and published material of public concern.
Supreme Court opinions in Bartnicki v. Vopper · Supreme Court of the United States532 U.S. 514, majority 524-535; concurrence 535-541; dissent 541 onward
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses. Newest first.
John Paul StevensAssociate justice writing the Supreme Court's majority opinionBefore this statement
The publishers did not participate in the unlawful interception.
"a stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern."
Defended or excusedCase context: Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call
Full statement and sources
Stevens defends First Amendment protection for these disclosures.
After the statement
The holding concerns information of public concern.
Supreme Court opinions in Bartnicki v. Vopper · Supreme Court of the United States532 U.S. 514, majority 524-535; concurrence 535-541; dissent 541 onwardWhy this label?
The case concerns publication of this intercepted call, assessed on the majority's accepted premises of lawful receipt by nonparticipating recipients and public concern. Stevens defends First Amendment protection for these disclosures.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
William H. RehnquistChief justice writing in dissent, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence ThomasBefore this statement
He argues that the speakers had no intention of contributing to a public debate.
"The Constitution should not protect the involuntary broadcast of personal conversations."
CondemnedCase context: Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call
Full statement and sources
Rehnquist argues that the Constitution should not protect the involuntary broadcast of personal conversations.
After the statement
He calls the conversations private and worthy of protection.
Supreme Court opinions in Bartnicki v. Vopper · Supreme Court of the United States532 U.S. 514, majority 524-535; concurrence 535-541; dissent 541 onwardWhy this label?
The case concerns publishing the intercepted call, not whether the wiretap law is desirable. Rehnquist expressly rejects constitutional protection for the involuntary broadcast and argues against the publication protected by the majority.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
American Civil Liberties UnionOrganization speaking through legal director Steven ShapiroBefore this statement
Its legal director Steven Shapiro comments on the ruling.
"Today’s decision once again reaffirms the First Amendment right of the media to publish and broadcast information of public concern."
Defended or excusedCase context: Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call
Full statement and sources
The ACLU supports the publication holding.
After the statement
The organization also opposes unlawful interception.
ACLU welcomes the Bartnicki publication ruling · American Civil Liberties UnionSteven Shapiro quotation and closing discussion of interceptionWhy this label?
The case concerns publication of this intercepted call, assessed on the majority's accepted premises of lawful receipt by nonparticipating recipients and public concern. The ACLU supports the publication holding.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(2)
Original text
Supreme Court opinions in Bartnicki v. Vopper
Relevant passage: 532 U.S. 514, majority 524-535; concurrence 535-541; dissent 541 onward
About this source
The opinions consider publication by recipients who did not participate in the interception, lawfully received the tape and published material of public concern.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
ACLU welcomes the Bartnicki publication ruling
Relevant passage: Steven Shapiro quotation and closing discussion of interception
About this source
The ACLU defends publication of public-concern information while opposing illegal interception.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/bartnicki-v-vopper-intercepted-call-publication-privacy
The Dispute Index. "Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call". First published: 2026-10-25. Last updated: 2026-10-25. https://disputeindex.com/cases/bartnicki-v-vopper-intercepted-call-publication-privacy