In the case of Bartnicki et al. v. Vopper, AKA Williams, et al., 2000, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a radio commentator's First Amendment rights were violated when he was held liable for broadcasting an illegally intercepted phone conversation between union officials discussing violent tactics. The court ruled in favor of Vopper (the radio commentator), stating that his actions were protected by the First Amendment as long as he played no part in the illegal interception and only received and broadcasted it later on. This decision set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances; essentially establishing that media outlets cannot be held responsible for disclosing information about matters of public importance obtained from sources who may have acted unlawfully to acquire such information.

In the dissenting opinion for Bartnicki et al. v. Vopper, AKA Williams, et al., Justice Rehnquist argued that the First Amendment does not protect a broadcaster who discloses an illegally intercepted communication if they knew or had reason to know of its illegality. He contended that such protection would undermine privacy rights and encourage illegal conduct by rewarding those who disclose private information obtained unlawfully. The majority's decision, he believed, failed to adequately balance these competing interests in privacy and free speech. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of previous case law as establishing a broad right to publish stolen material without consequence.