stay-away order

In the fall of 1992 and spring of 1993 the Pennsylvania State Education Association engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District board. Petitioner Anthony Kane was president of the local union. Petitioner Gloria Bartnicki served as the union's chief negotiator and a teacher in the district. On the evening of May 15, 1993, Bartnicki used a cellular telephone in her car to call Kane. During the conversation they discussed the status of the negotiations, the possibility of a strike, and the board's offer of a three-percent raise. Kane suggested that if the board did not increase its offer the union should reject it and go on strike. He made statements about blowing off front porches and doing work on some of the board members. Bartnicki responded that they would have to do some nasty things. An unidentified person intercepted and recorded the cellular telephone conversation using an electronic device. The unknown interceptor gave the tape to respondent Jack Yocum, president of a local taxpayers' organization that had been critical of the union's demands. Yocum in turn gave the tape to respondent Frederick W. Vopper, a radio talk show host operating in the area. On May 31, 1993, Vopper played the tape of the intercepted conversation on his public affairs talk show. He played the tape again on August 23, 1993, during a news broadcast on a local television station. The same day the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader published a transcript of a portion of the tape. Bartnicki and Kane filed suit against Vopper, Yocum, and other media defendants seeking damages under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After discovery the District Court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment as to liability. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Upon the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a twelfth seat in the House of Representatives. The General Assembly passed an initial reapportionment plan that included only one majority-black district. The Attorney General interposed an objection under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The objection stated that the plan could have included a second majority-minority district in the south-central to southeastern area with boundary lines no more irregular than those elsewhere in the proposal. Subsequently, the General Assembly enacted a revised plan creating District 12 as the second majority-black district along the Interstate 85 corridor in the north-central region. The district extends roughly 160 miles, often no wider than the highway itself, snaking through diverse areas and incorporating sufficient black population enclaves to achieve a majority. It splits multiple counties into three districts each, divides towns, and maintains contiguity at one location only by intersecting other districts at a single point. Appellants are five residents of Durham County, North Carolina, all registered to vote in that county. Under the plan, two plaintiffs vote in District 12 and three in District 2. They alleged that the General Assembly deliberately created the districts along racial lines, arbitrarily concentrating black voters without regard to compactness, contiguity, or political subdivisions. The three-judge District Court granted the federal appellees' motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds related to the Voting Rights Act and dismissed the claims against the state appellees by a 2-1 vote. The majority held that the complaint failed to state an equal protection claim because the plan did not dilute white voting strength and was adopted to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The dissenting judge concluded that the irregular shape supported an inference of unlawful intent sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.