BARTNICKI v. VOPPER

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether a federal law that imposes civil liability on individuals for using or disclosing the contents of illegally intercepted communications that they did not illegally obtain, but that they knew or had reason to know were obtained illegally, violates the First Amendment rights of the defendants.

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

In May 1993, Gloria Bartnicki, chief negotiator for the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union, had a cellular phone conversation with Anthony Kane, a teacher at Wyoming Valley West High School about the contentious negotiations over the teachers' new contract. An unknown person intercepted the contents of the cellular phone conversation and gave them to defendant Jack Yocum, president of the Wyoming Valley West Taxpayers' Association an organization formed for the sole purpose of opposing the teachers' new contract. Yocum then gave the tape to a Fred Williams, a local radio show host, who goes by the name of Frederick Vopper. Vopper played portions of the cell phone conversation over the air.

Bartnicki and Kane sued Vopper, two radio stations and Yocum in federal district court in 1994 under the Federal Wiretapping Act and a similar state law. In 1995, the federal district court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, finding there were genuine issues of material fact. The district then later certified two questions of law to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The certified questions asked whether imposing liability on the defendants, none of whom illegally intercepted the contents of the phone call, violates the First Amendment.

In 1999, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the federal law imposing liability on individuals who merely disclose or use material that was illegally intercepted violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs and the United States, which had intervened to defend the constitutionality of its law, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Importance of Case

The Supreme Court held that publication was protected in this case. The Court found the government’s interest in deterring unlawful recording unpersuasive, writing, “The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate punishment on the person who engages in it.” Though the Court found the government interest in privacy persuasive, “privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance,” which the Court believed was present in this case.