# United States v. New York Telephone Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · December 7, 1977 · 434 U.S. 159

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427011

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. New York Telephone Co.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** December 7, 1977
- **Citations:** 434 U.S. 159; 98 S. Ct. 364; 54 L. Ed. 2d 376; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 161
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Stewart
- **Judges:** Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Stewart, White
- **Cited by:** 773 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427011

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, under the All Writs Act, “ ‘[ujnless appropriately confined by Congress, a federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in the performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to…
- concluding that the phone company was not “a third party so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled”
- holding that All Writs Act empowers district courts to enjoin persons “who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice”
- stating that a federal court has the power “to issue such commands under the All Writs Act as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration' of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of [its] jurisdiction”

## Opinion text

Me. Justice Stewart,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the use of pen registers is not governed by the requirements of Title III and that the District Court had authority to issue the order authorizing installation of the pen register, and so join Parts I, II, and III of the Court’s opinion. However, I agree with Mr. Justice Stevens that the District Court lacked power to order the telephone company to assist the Government in installing the pen register, and thus join Part II of his dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427011. Public record. Not legal advice.