Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

Bartnicki v. Vopper

United States Supreme Court
532 U.S. 514 (2001)


Facts

In May 1993, Bartnicki, the teacher union’s chief negotiator, called Kane, the president of that union, and engaged in a lengthy conversation about the status of their collective bargaining negotiations. These negotiations were receiving significant media attention at the time. An unidentified third party intercepted and recorded that call. In part of the conversation, Kane threatened violence to the school board members if the negotiations did not go favorably. In early fall of 1993, the parties accepted a non-binding arbitration proposal that was generally favorable to the teachers. Vopper (defendant), a radio broadcaster, obtained that recording from the unidentified source and played the tape on his public affairs talk show. Kane and Bartnicki (plaintiffs) filed suit against Vopper for invasion of privacy under federal and state wiretapping laws in federal district court. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), as well as provisions of Pennsylvania State law, prohibited the interception of electronic, oral, and wire communications. The district court ruled in favor of Kane and Bartnicki. The court of appeals reversed on the grounds that the First Amendment protected the radio broadcast. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Breyer, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Rehnquist, C.J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.