## Facts

- Federal agents investigating a liquor-smuggling operation tapped telephone wires and intercepted interstate calls involving the defendants.
- The prosecution charged offenses including smuggling alcohol, possessing and concealing smuggled alcohol, and conspiracy to smuggle and conceal.
- Over defense objection, the trial court allowed agents to testify to the contents of the intercepted telephone conversations.
- The wiretap testimony was a central part of the government’s proof.
- The governing statute was § 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibited unauthorized interception of communications and prohibited divulging the existence or contents of intercepted communications to any person.

## Issues

1. Whether § 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 bars federal agents from intercepting telephone communications without sender authorization.
2. Whether § 605’s prohibition on “divulg[ing]” intercepted communications forbids agents from testifying in court to the contents of intercepted calls.
3. Whether the federal government is excluded from § 605’s general language (“no person”) under interpretive canons or legislative history.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the convictions.
- The Court held that § 605’s phrase “no person” includes federal agents engaged in criminal investigations.
- The Court held that “divulge ... to any person” includes courtroom testimony describing the contents of intercepted communications.
- Legislative history and post-enactment practice could not overcome § 605’s plain text.
- Whether federal wiretapping should be permitted was treated as a policy choice for Congress, not a judicial exception to the statute’s command.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence obtained by federal agents through wiretapping and interception of telephone messages, in violation of § 605, is inadmissible in federal criminal trials.
- In § 605, “no person” reaches federal law-enforcement officers; the statute is not limited to private actors.
- “Divulge ... to any person” covers disclosure through testimony in court, not merely publication outside judicial proceedings.
- When statutory text is clear, committee reports and administrative practice do not justify a contrary construction.
- The canon that general statutory words do not bind the sovereign does not control when the statute is intended to prevent injury and wrong; in that setting, the government is included within the statute’s general terms.

## Conclusion

The Court construed § 605 to prohibit federal agents from both intercepting telephone communications without authorization and disclosing their contents through courtroom testimony, requiring reversal because the prosecution relied materially on such unlawfully intercepted communications.


Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379 (1937)