noting that disclosures may be lawfully constrained under the First Amendment, and citing the VPPA
How later courts described this case
- noting that disclosures may be lawfully constrained under the First Amendment, and citing the VPPA
- “Aguilar stands for the principle that those who accept positions of trust involving a duty not to disclose information they lawfully acquire while performing their responsibilities have no First Amendment right to disclose that information.”
- "The Supreme Court [has] underlined the lack of constitutional significance of the communicator's knowledge that the interception had been unlawfully conducted."
- “Speedy Trial Act does not provide for retroactive continuances.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree that Representative McDermott’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment and for that reason join Judge Randolph’s opinion, I write separately to explain that I would have found the disclosure of the tape recording protected by the First Amendment under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 , 121 S.Ct. 1753 , 149 L.Ed.2d 787 (2001), had it not also been a violation of House Ethics Committee Rule 9, which imposed on Representative McDermott a duty not to “disclose any evidence relating to an investigation to any person or organization outside the Committee unless authorized by the Committee.” Although the Court does not and need not reach the Bartnicki issue to resolve the matter before us, two previous panels in this case have held that the congressman’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment. I believe it is worth noting that a majority of the members of the Court — those who join Part I of Judge Sentelle’s dissent — would have found his actions protected by the First Amendment. Nonetheless, because Representative McDermott cannot here wield the First Amendment shield that he voluntarily relinquished as a member of the Ethics Committee, I join Judge Randolph’s opinion in concluding that his disclosure of the tape recording was not protected by the First Amendment.