Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Michigan Et Al. (Plamondon Et Al., Real Parties In Interest)

• 1971 • 407 U.S. 297 • Burger Court
The United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al., 1971, was a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with issues of domestic surveillance and Fourth Amendment rights. The government had wiretapped without obtaining a warrant, conversations involving Lawrence Robert Plamondon, who was charged with conspiring to destroy government property. The Justice Department argued that the President has inherent authority to order such wiretapping in the interest...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1971
Docket: 70-153
407 U.S. 297
92 S. Ct. 2125
32 L. Ed. 2d 752
1972 U.S. LEXIS 38
Argued: Feb 24, 1972

United States v. United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Michigan Et Al. (Plamondon Et Al., Real Parties In Interest)

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al., 1971, was a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with issues of domestic surveillance and Fourth Amendment rights. The government had wiretapped without obtaining a warrant, conversations involving Lawrence Robert Plamondon, who was charged with conspiring to destroy government property. The Justice Department argued that the President has inherent authority to order such wiretapping in the interest of national security without judicial oversight or approval. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against this argument stating that neither Congress nor the President can sanction warrantless domestic surveillance related to criminal activity even in cases where national security is involved. This decision reaffirmed citizens' Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring warrants for any electronic surveillance within U.S borders.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al., 1971, was not recorded as all justices concurred with the majority decision. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that warrantless domestic surveillance operations by the government violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, thus requiring a court-approved warrant to conduct such activities even in cases involving national security threats.

Opinion written by Justice LFPowell
Decided: Jun 19, 1972
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms