Rehnquist rejects constitutional protection for the challenged broadcast
William H. RehnquistChief justice writing in dissent, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
Rehnquist argues that the Constitution should not protect the involuntary broadcast of personal conversations.
“The Constitution should not protect the involuntary broadcast of personal conversations.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call
The Supreme Court protected publication of a recorded call by recipients who did not participate in the illegal interception and lawfully obtained the tape afterward. John Paul Stevens's majority emphasizes public concern. William Rehnquist's dissent stresses privacy and incentives for interception.
Source and context
Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
He argues that the speakers had no intention of contributing to a public debate.
After the quotation
He calls the conversations private and worthy of protection.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why 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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThe ACLU welcomes protection for public-concern reporting
American Civil Liberties Union
“Today’s decision once again reaffirms the First Amendment right of the media to publish and broadcast information of public concern.”Read statement
Stevens defends publishing the intercepted call as protected speech
“a stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Rehnquist rejects constitutional protection for the challenged broadcast
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6727-rehnquist-argues-that-the-constitution-should-not-protect
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Rehnquist rejects constitutional protection for the challenged broadcast". First published: 2026-10-25. Last updated: 2026-10-25. https://disputeindex.com/events/6727-rehnquist-argues-that-the-constitution-should-not-protect