Bartnicki et al. v. Vopper, aka Williams, et al.
In a case over a media defendant's broadcast of a taped conversation of a labor official discussing a teachers' strike, which had been recorded in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Court held the broadcast was legal.· AI-written
532 U.S. 514 · No. 99-1687 · 2000 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided May 21, 2001 · argued Dec 5, 2000
First Amendment · Libel, privacy: true and false light invasions of privacy
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: John Stevens
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed. Bartnicki et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Bartnicki et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case relieving a media defendant of liability for broadcasting a taped conversation of a labor official talking to other union members about a teachers' strike.
At trial, the parties stipulated that the taped conversation had been recorded in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Nevertheless, the Court held the broadcast was legal.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2000 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
John StevensWrote the majority opinion
Stephen BreyerWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
William RehnquistWrote a dissent
Antonin ScaliaJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Bartnicki et al.Governmental employee or job applicant (Pennsylvania)
- Respondent
- Vopper, aka Williams, et al.Journalist, columnist, member of the news media
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 21, 2001DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Bartnicki et al. lost.
- Dec 5, 2000ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on libel, privacy: true and false light invasions of privacy, newest first.
- The Florida Star v. B. J. F.491 U.S. 524Jun 21, 1989 · 491 U.S. 524First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.433 U.S. 562Jun 28, 1977 · 433 U.S. 562First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services et al.Landmark · Separation of powers433 U.S. 425Jun 28, 1977 · 433 U.S. 425First AmendmentLandmark · Separation of powers7–27–2 band
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. et al. v. Cohn420 U.S. 469Mar 3, 1975 · 420 U.S. 469First Amendment8–18–1 band
- Cantrell et al. v. Forest City Publishing Co. et al.419 U.S. 245Dec 18, 1974 · 419 U.S. 245First Amendment8–18–1 band
- Time, Inc. v. Hill385 U.S. 374Jan 9, 1967 · 385 U.S. 374First Amendment5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.