Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

Hacks, Leaks, and Data Dumps: The Right to Publish Illegally Acquired Information Twenty Years After Bartnicki V. Vopper

Abstract: This Article addresses a fluid and increasingly salient category of cases involving the First Amendment right to publish information that was hacked, stolen, or illegally leaked by someone else. Twenty years ago, in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court appeared to give broad constitutional cover to journalists and other publishers in these situations, but Justice Stevens’s inexact opinion for the Court and Justice Breyer’s muddling concurrence left the boundaries unclear. The Bartnicki framework is now implicated in dozens of new cases— from the extradition and prosecution of Julian Assange, to Donald Trump’s threatened suit of The New York Times over his tax records, to the civil suits spawned by the hack of DNC servers—so there is a pressing need for clarity.

The empirical part of this Article presents the results of a comprehensive analysis of every case applying Bartnicki over the past two decades to determine if lower courts have answered the questions Bartnicki left open and to identify points of confluence and conflict. The analysis shows courts are divided about nearly every aspect of Bartnicki. There is a circuit split regarding the amount of separation a publisher must have from a source in order to be protected, division about the relevance of statutory prohibitions on receiving or possessing certain information, and confusion about how to assess whether publications, particularly those involving large caches of data, address matters of public concern.

The normative part of this Article proposes a reorientation of courts’ approaches to these issues by (1) untethering liability for the procurement, receipt, and publication of information, treating each as a legally discrete act; (2) denying Bartnicki protection only to those who directly participate or assist in the illegal procurement of information; (3) treating as a First Amendment violation any law punishing those who merely receive or possess newsworthy information; and (4) engaging in more contextual analyses of “public concern.” All of these changes will help stabilize the law, strike a better balance between newsgathering and secrecy, and vitalize press and citizen communication at a time of decreasing government and private-sector transparency.

Download the Full Article

Other Articles from WLR Print Edition

June 1, 2023 in PRINT EDITION

In the Room Where It Happens: How Federal Appropriations Law Can Enforce Tribal Consultation Policies and Protect Native Subsistence Rights in Alaska

Abstract: Federal-tribal consultation is one of the only mechanisms available to American Indian and Alaska Native communities to provide input on federal management decisions impacting their subsistence lands and resources.…
Read More
June 1, 2023 in PRINT EDITION

Creating and Maintaining Consistent Standards Regarding the Role of Parental Substance Abuse at Shelter Care Hearings in Washington State

Abstract: When Child Protective Services (CPS) removes children from their home in Washington State, the State must hold a shelter care hearing within seventy-two hours to determine where the children…
Read More
June 1, 2023 in PRINT EDITION

Per Curiam Signals in the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Abstract: Lower courts and litigants depend a great deal on the Supreme Court to articulate and communicate signals regarding how to interpret existing doctrine. Signals are at their strongest and…
Read More