In Nardone et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, overturning their convictions for conspiracy to violate federal liquor laws due to evidence obtained through wiretapping by federal agents. The court held that Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act prohibited not only unauthorized interception and divulgence but also use as evidence of communications intercepted in violation of its provisions. This decision was based on an interpretation that Congress intended to protect privacy rights against intrusion via wiretapping when it enacted this law, thus any information gathered from such means could not be used as part of a prosecution's case in court.

In the dissenting opinion for Nardone et al. v. United States, Justice Butler argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that this section should not be interpreted to prohibit all use of intercepted communications in federal court proceedings, but rather only their unauthorized publication or divulgence outside such proceedings. According to him, Congress intended to protect private communication from being made public without consent; it did not intend to shield criminals from prosecution based on evidence obtained through wiretapping by law enforcement officers acting in good faith under a reasonable belief they were authorized by law. He also pointed out potential negative consequences of excluding such evidence: encouraging crime and obstructing justice by providing a safe harbor for wrongdoers whose illegal activities are detected via wiretap.