October Term 2017 · Docket 17-43

Does a federal wiretap order need a specific state name?

the sides that brought the case argue the order lacked a required state name. The government says the order was valid.

Official caption
Dahda v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Shanmugam argued the wiretap statute protects individual privacy.

    Shanmugam stated the statute requires detailed requirements for wiretaps.

    Roberts questioned the need for a territorial limitation statement.

    Ginsburg asked if the order cited the statutory section.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests if a wiretap order must name a specific state to be valid.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 21, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the court to void the wiretap order.

The government wants the court to keep the wiretap order valid.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the order failed a statutory requirement.

The government argues the order met all legal standards.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the order needed a territorial statement.

Justice Ginsburg asked if the order cited the statutory section.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the strictness of federal wiretap authorization rules.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON