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.
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.
No responses match these filters.
Clear response filtersSources
(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