## Facts

- Elisabeth and James Glazner were married for nineteen years when James filed for divorce in Alabama state court.
- During the divorce proceedings, James installed a recording device on a telephone in the marital residence.
- The device intercepted and recorded numerous telephone conversations between Elisabeth and third parties without the consent or knowledge of any party to the calls.
- Elisabeth sued in federal district court asserting a damages claim under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522) and supplemental state-law tort claims.
- The district court found James had wiretapped the calls but granted him summary judgment on the Title III claim, relying on circuit precedent recognizing an implied interspousal exception for wiretapping in the marital home.
- After disposing of the federal claim, the district court dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- Elisabeth appealed; the Eleventh Circuit heard the case en banc to determine whether the implied interspousal exception remained valid.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III contains an implied interspousal exception that bars civil liability for a spouse’s nonconsensual interception of the other spouse’s wire communications within the marital home.
2. If prior precedent recognizing such an exception is overruled, whether the new rule applies retroactively to the parties’ conduct in this case.

## Decision

- The en banc Eleventh Circuit overruled prior circuit precedent recognizing an implied interspousal exception to Title III.
- The court held Title III’s prohibition on intentional interception applies absent an express statutory exception, and no spousal exception exists in the statute.
- The court applied its holding retroactively to the case before it.
- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for James on the Title III claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The dismissal of the supplemental state-law claims without prejudice was left to be addressed on remand in light of the reinstated federal claim.

## Legal Principles

- Title III broadly prohibits intentional interception of wire communications; courts may not create exemptions not found in the statute’s text.
- Marital status and interception within the marital home do not create an implied immunity from Title III civil liability.
- Circuit precedent implying an interspousal wiretapping exception was rejected as inconsistent with the statute’s comprehensive language and structure.
- Under the Chevron Oil retroactivity factors, overruling prior precedent may apply retroactively where retroactivity better serves the statute’s remedial purpose and retroactive application is not inequitable in light of notice and the wrongfulness of the conduct.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Title III provides no implied interspousal exception for clandestine wiretapping in the marital home and applied that interpretation retroactively, reversing summary judgment for the intercepting spouse and remanding for further proceedings on the federal claim and related matters.


Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc)