In the case of COOL v. United States in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning wiretapping and surveillance. The petitioner, Cool, was convicted for conspiracy to distribute narcotics based on evidence obtained through a court-authorized wiretap. He appealed his conviction arguing that the authorization for the wiretap did not meet statutory requirements because it was issued by an Attorney General's Executive Assistant rather than by the Attorney General himself or any authorized officer as required under Title III of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Supreme Court upheld Cool’s conviction ruling that even though there were procedural errors in obtaining approval for the wiretap, these errors did not warrant overturning his conviction since they didn't affect its lawfulness or violate Cool's constitutional rights. The court held that Congress intended to allow such minor deviations from procedure when it enacted Title III provided those deviations do not infringe upon privacy rights protected by Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the dissenting opinion for COOL v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring radio and television broadcasters to give equal airtime to all political candidates violated First Amendment rights. The justice believed that this requirement infringed upon broadcasters' freedom of speech by forcing them to present views they may not agree with or support. Furthermore, it was suggested that such a mandate could potentially lead to an overwhelming amount of requests from minor party candidates seeking airtime, which would be impractical and burdensome for broadcasting stations. The dissent also pointed out potential issues with determining what constitutes "equal" time in various contexts and formats on different media platforms. Overall, while acknowledging the government’s interest in ensuring fair elections through balanced coverage, the dissenting opinion held firm on prioritizing constitutional protections over legislative intentions.