In the 1980 case Kissinger v. Halperin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on issues related to wiretapping and governmental immunity from lawsuits. The case was initiated by Morton Halperin who sued Henry Kissinger, alleging that his phone had been illegally wiretapped while Kissinger served as National Security Advisor under President Nixon. The court held that public officials such as Kissinger are immune from damages for actions taken in their official capacity, even if those actions violate constitutional rights of individuals unless they clearly violated established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known about at the time of violation. The court also addressed whether transcripts of these alleged illegal wiretaps should be returned to Halperin or destroyed; it concluded that since there were no ongoing legal proceedings requiring them and because they were obtained unlawfully, there was no reason for their preservation and thus could be destroyed.

In the dissenting opinion for Kissinger v. Halperin, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both the Federal Wiretap Act and its legislative history. He contended that Congress intended to protect all conversations from unauthorized interceptions, not just those related to criminal activities or national security threats as suggested by the majority. Furthermore, he disagreed with their assertion that wiretapped communications could be used in civil litigation if they were initially obtained for legitimate purposes. According to him, this interpretation contradicted explicit statutory language prohibiting any use of intercepted communications in legal proceedings unless specifically authorized by law. Lastly, he criticized their reliance on an exception allowing disclosure "to protect one’s rights," arguing it only applied when individuals sought protection against potential harm caused by illegal interceptions rather than using them offensively in lawsuits.