Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Ashley Grayson v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 24-5988 · judgment August 14, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III) prohibits intentionally intercepting wire or oral communications or disclosing contents of unlawfully intercepted communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), (c). In turn, Title III’s exclusionary rule, 18 U.S.C. § 2515, provides that “no part of the contents” of an intercepted communication “and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or proceeding” before any state or federal court or governmental body “if the disclosure of that information” would violate Title III. The courts of appeals plus a state high court have openly split over whether § 2515’s exclusionary rule applies against the government when the government wasn’t involved in the unlawful interception. The First, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits and the Massachusetts high court apply § 2515 as written, with no exception if the government wasn’t involved in the interception. United States v. Vest, 813 F.2d 477, 479-80 (1st Cir. 1987); In re Grand Jury, 111 F.3d 1066, 1077-79 (3d Cir. 1997); United States v. Crabtree, 565 F.3d 887, 889-90 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Phillips, 540 F.2d 319, 327 n.5 (8th Cir. 1976); Chandler v. United States Army, 125 F.3d 1296, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997); Commonwealth v. Damiano, 828 N.E.2d 510, 517 (Mass. 2005). The Sixth Circuit alone reads a clean-hands exception into § 2515, allowing the government to introduce unlawfully intercepted communications if the government played no part in interception. United States v. Murdock, 63 F.3d 1391, 1402-04 (6th Cir. 1995). The question presented is: Whether § 2515’s exclusionary rule contains an unwritten clean-hands exception.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Shay Dvoretzky
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Jun 22 2026Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed on May 12, 2026. Justice Alito, dissenting. (Detached Opinion)
- Jun 15 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2026.
- Jun 08 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2026.
- May 19 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2026.
- May 15 2026Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
- May 15 2026Reply of petitioner Ashley Grayson filed. (Distributed)
- May 12 2026Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Apr 10 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 19, 2026.
- Apr 09 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 20, 2026 to May 19, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 24 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 20, 2026.
- Feb 23 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 19, 2026 to April 20, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 17 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 19, 2026.
- Feb 17 2026Brief amicus curiae of Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
- Feb 13 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 17, 2026 to March 19, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 14 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 17, 2026)
- Nov 18 2025Application (25A581) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until January 14, 2026.
- Nov 13 2025Application (25A581) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 14, 2025 to January 14, 2026, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.