In the 1994 case United States v. Robert P. Aguilar, U.S District Judge Robert Aguilar was convicted of illegally disclosing a wiretap and endeavoring to obstruct justice by advising an individual under federal investigation about the existence of that wiretap. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction on both counts, ruling that for a violation of the wiretap statute to occur, there must be proof that the defendant disclosed information with intent to obstruct or impede interception activities specifically authorized by Title III (the section governing lawful surveillance). Furthermore, they ruled that in order for someone to be guilty of obstruction of justice under this particular law, their actions must have had or could have potentially had an impact on judicial proceedings; merely providing advice does not meet this standard.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Robert P. Aguilar, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal obstruction-of-justice statutes and argued that they were too broad in scope. He contended that these laws should not be used to criminalize acts such as giving advice or sharing information unless it was done with corrupt intent to obstruct justice specifically. In this case, he believed Judge Aguilar did not have sufficient knowledge about the wiretap investigation to intentionally obstruct it by disclosing its existence; therefore, his actions could not constitute a crime under these statutes according to Scalia’s narrower interpretation of them.