Connection lost
Server error
BARTNICKI v. VOPPER Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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
