Supreme Court Rejects "Clean-Hands" Wiretap Loophole, Sends Influencer's Case Back to Sixth Circuit
Supreme Court Rejects "Clean-Hands" Wiretap Loophole, Sends Influencer's Case Back to Sixth Circuit
On June 22, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded (GVR'd) Ashley Grayson's murder-for-hire case, No. 25-851, after the Solicitor General conceded a lower court wrongly created a "clean-hands" exception to the federal Wiretap Act's suppression rule.
Information last verified on July 5, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Jurisdiction scope: This case involves the federal Wiretap Act (-2522), which governs interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications and applies nationwide in federal court. It does not itself decide whether a particular state's recording-consent law was violated; those rules are separate and vary from state to state. See our Two-Party Consent States guide for state-by-state rules.
What Happened
Ashley Grayson, a social-media influencer, was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire after prosecutors introduced a secretly recorded FaceTime call as key evidence. According to court filings and reporting on the case, the call was recorded not by law enforcement but by Olivia Johnson, the person Grayson allegedly solicited to carry out the killing; Johnson recorded the conversation herself and it was later obtained by the government.
Grayson moved to suppress the recording at trial, arguing it was intercepted in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and therefore barred from evidence under . The trial court allowed the recording under a "clean-hands" theory, reasoning that suppression should not apply because the government itself played no role in the interception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the clean-hands exception and Grayson's conviction.
Grayson petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. In a brief filed May 12, 2026, the Solicitor General, representing the United States, conceded that the Sixth Circuit had erred in reading a clean-hands exception into Section 2515's suppression rule. The government argued, however, that the error was harmless given the rest of the evidence against Grayson.
On June 22, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case "for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States." This procedural move, known as a GVR, does not resolve whether the FaceTime recording is ultimately admissible; it directs the Sixth Circuit to redo its analysis without relying on the clean-hands theory the government itself abandoned.
Justice Alito dissented alone. He agreed with the government's fallback argument that any suppression error was harmless, writing that:
"Even setting aside the FaceTime recording, a mountain of properly admitted evidence proved" Grayson's guilt.
He would have denied further review and let the conviction stand rather than send the case back to the Sixth Circuit.
What the Law Actually Says
The federal Wiretap Act, formally Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended, is codified at through 2522. Two provisions are central to the Grayson dispute.
prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, subject to specific statutory exceptions (such as consent by a party to the call in most circumstances). Our overview of the Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA walks through what the interception ban covers and how it interacts with state consent laws.
is the suppression rule: it states that no part of the contents of an unlawfully intercepted communication, and no evidence derived from it, "may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding" in federal or state court, if disclosure would violate the Act. The Sixth Circuit's clean-hands theory read an unwritten exception into that suppression rule, allowing the recording in because the government had not itself done the intercepting. The Solicitor General's concession that this reasoning was wrong is what triggered the GVR.
The Wiretap Act's interception ban is a floor, not the whole picture. Because federal consent rules interact with, but do not replace, state recording laws, whether a given recording was lawful to make in the first place also depends on which state's consent rule applies. Two-party consent states such as Illinois, Florida, and California generally require all parties to a call to consent before it can be recorded, with narrower exceptions than one-party consent jurisdictions.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
The Grayson GVR is narrow in what it decides but notable in what it removes from circulation. By conceding error, the Solicitor General effectively closed off a theory, a freestanding "clean-hands" carve-out from Section 2515's suppression rule, that the Sixth Circuit had used to admit an intercepted recording without applying the statute's own text. The Supreme Court's order does not hold that the FaceTime recording must be suppressed, nor does it hold that Grayson's conviction is invalid. It simply requires the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the suppression question without relying on the reasoning the government itself has abandoned.
That distinction matters for how this case should be read going forward. A GVR is a procedural signal, not a merits ruling. The Sixth Circuit could still find, on remand, some other basis to admit the recording, or it could find the error harmless, as the government and Justice Alito both argued. Nothing in the June 22, 2026 order forecloses either outcome.
What the order does reinforce is that Section 2515's suppression rule is meant to be applied on its own terms, not supplemented with judge-made exceptions keyed to who did the intercepting. For a site focused on recording law, the underlying reminder is a familiar one: the federal Wiretap Act's suppression rule addresses the use of an unlawfully intercepted communication in court, a distinct question from whether the recording itself was lawful to make under the interception ban in Section 2511 or under the consent rules of the state where it happened.
How This Affects You
This case does not change any state's recording-consent rules, and it does not establish that secretly recorded calls generally are, or are not, admissible in court. Admissibility questions turn on the specific facts of interception, who made the recording, under what circumstances, and which jurisdiction's consent law applied, and on the posture of each case. Anyone with a question about a specific recording or a specific prosecution should consult a licensed attorney rather than rely on this or any other single case as a general rule.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers the federal Wiretap Act and reflects sources verified on July 5, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Sources
- Supreme Court Order List, June 22, 2026 (608 U.S.)
- No. 25-851, Grayson v. United States, order and Alito dissent (06/22/2026)
- Ashley Grayson v. United States, No. 25-851, docket
- 18 U.S.C. 2515, Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications
- 18 U.S.C. 2511, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
- Ashley Grayson v. United States, Supreme Court case page, Legal Information Institute
Related articles
- Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA
- Two-Party Consent States
- Illinois Recording Laws: Recording Police
- Florida Recording Laws: Phone Calls
- California Recording Laws: Phone Calls
Last updated: 2026-07-05. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-05.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a secretly recorded phone call be used as evidence in court?
It depends on how the recording was made and which law applies. Under the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2515, evidence derived from an unlawfully intercepted communication generally cannot be admitted in federal or state proceedings. Whether a specific recording was lawful to make in the first place also depends on the interception rules in Section 2511 and on the consent law of the state involved.
What is the federal Wiretap Act's suppression rule?
18 U.S.C. 2515 bars the use of an unlawfully intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, and any evidence derived from it, in trials, hearings, or other proceedings if disclosure would violate the Act. It works alongside the interception ban in 18 U.S.C. 2511.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Grayson v. United States?
On June 22, 2026, the Court granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case, No. 25-851, for the Sixth Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of the Solicitor General's concession that a 'clean-hands' exception to Section 2515 was legal error. The Court did not rule on whether the recording is ultimately admissible.
What is a 'clean-hands' exception to the Wiretap Act?
It is a theory, applied by the Sixth Circuit in this case, that an unlawfully intercepted recording need not be suppressed under 18 U.S.C. 2515 if the government itself did not participate in the interception. The Solicitor General conceded this theory was erroneous, prompting the Supreme Court's remand.
What is the difference between one-party and two-party consent states?
One-party consent states allow a person who is a party to a conversation to record it without telling the other participants. Two-party (all-party) consent states generally require every participant to agree before a call or conversation can be recorded, subject to certain exceptions that vary by state.
Did Justice Alito dissent from the Supreme Court's order?
Yes. Justice Samuel Alito dissented alone from the June 22, 2026 order, arguing that even if the Sixth Circuit applied the wrong legal standard, the error was harmless because other properly admitted evidence established Grayson's guilt.
Does a GVR mean the Supreme Court ruled the recording is inadmissible?
No. A GVR (grant, vacate, remand) sends a case back to a lower court for further proceedings; it is not a merits decision. The Sixth Circuit must now reconsider the suppression question without relying on the clean-hands theory, but it has not yet ruled on the outcome.
Updates
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 3 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 120 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527) · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425) · Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Alabama Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules
§ 2515Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 622 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Calandra (Supreme Court of the United States 1974, 414 U.S. 338) · United States v. Giordano (Supreme Court of the United States 1974, 416 U.S. 505) · Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Supreme Court Tosses Conviction Over a Secretly Recorded FaceTime Call (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Supreme Court Order List, June 22, 2026 (608 U.S.)(supremecourt.gov).gov
- No. 25-851, Grayson v. United States, order and Alito dissent (06/22/2026)(supremecourt.gov).gov
- Ashley Grayson v. United States, No. 25-851, docket filing(supremecourt.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2515, Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2511, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(law.cornell.edu)
- Ashley Grayson v. United States, Supreme Court case page, Legal Information Institute(law.cornell.edu)