In Durst et al. v. United States (1977), the appellants, who were members of a labor union, challenged their convictions for violating the Hobbs Act by obstructing interstate commerce through extortion. The appellants argued that they had not committed extortion because they did not obtain any personal gain from their actions; instead, they claimed to have been pursuing legitimate union objectives such as higher wages and better working conditions for workers. However, the Supreme Court upheld their convictions in a 6-3 decision stating that it was irrelevant whether or not the accused received personal gain from an act of extortion under the Hobbs Act - what mattered was if there was interference with interstate commerce via robbery or extortion which could be prosecuted regardless of motive.

In the dissenting opinion for Durst et al. v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through warrantless wiretaps was in violation of Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissent emphasized that these protections should extend to telephone conversations, as they are private communications not meant for public consumption or scrutiny by law enforcement without proper legal authorization. Furthermore, it was contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent where privacy rights could be easily violated under the guise of criminal investigations. The justice also criticized the majority's reliance on an exception to this constitutional protection - exigent circumstances - arguing that there were no immediate threats justifying bypassing normal procedures in this case.