BARTNICKI v. VOPPER Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The First Amendment protects the media from liability for publishing a newsworthy, illegally intercepted conversation, provided the media played no part in the illegal interception. The interest in publishing matters of public concern outweighs the statutory privacy interest in this context.
Legal Significance: Established that the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful, newsworthy information even if the publisher knows the source obtained it illegally, so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegality. This creates a high bar for punishing downstream publishers of leaked information.
BARTNICKI v. VOPPER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
During contentious union negotiations, an unknown person illegally intercepted and recorded a cellular phone call between union president Kane and chief negotiator Bartnicki (petitioners). On the recording, Kane threatened to “blow off their front porches.” The tape was anonymously given to respondent Yocum, the head of a local taxpayers’ organization, who then provided it to respondent Vopper, a radio commentator. Vopper and other media outlets broadcast the tape. Petitioners sued respondents under federal and state wiretapping statutes that prohibit the intentional disclosure of an electronic communication by one who knows or has reason to know it was illegally intercepted. The Court assumed for the purpose of its decision that the respondents did not participate in the illegal interception but knew of its unlawful nature. The conversation’s subject matter, concerning a public labor dispute and threats of violence, was a matter of public concern.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment protect speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication when the publisher was not involved in the interception but knew it was unlawful, and the communication involves a matter of public concern?
Yes. The application of the federal and state wiretapping statutes to punish Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offi
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment protect speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication when the publisher was not involved in the interception but knew it was unlawful, and the communication involves a matter of public concern?
Conclusion
This case significantly limits the government's ability to punish the "downstream" publication Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea com
Legal Rule
"If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, applied a balancing test Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally obtained information if