18 U.S.C. § 2521 — Injunction against illegal interception

This section lets the Attorney General go to court to stop illegal wiretapping before or during it. This applies if someone is committing, or about to commit, a felony violation of this chapter's wiretapping rules. In that case, the Attorney General may file a civil lawsuit in a U.S. district court. The goal of the lawsuit is to stop the violation. The court must move as quickly as it practically can to hear and decide the case. Before making a final decision, the court may issue a restraining order or a ban. The court may also take other action needed to prevent serious, ongoing harm. That harm could be to the United States, or to any person or group. Normal federal civil court rules apply to this kind of case. But if the person involved has already been indicted for the same conduct, criminal court discovery rules apply instead of civil ones.

The source credit indicates that this section was added by Public Law 99–508, title I, § 110(a), enacted October 21, 1986, and published at 100 Stat. 1859. The credit shows no further amendments to the section since its original enactment, suggesting the text has remained stable in the years following its addition to the chapter. Public Law 99–508 is commonly known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The Act is generally understood to have updated federal wiretap and surveillance law to address the growth of electronic communications—such as email, cellular telephones, and computer data transmissions—that were not clearly covered by earlier statutes focused on traditional wire and oral communications. Title I of the Act extended and refined the federal wiretap statute, and provisions like this one are consistent with the broader legislative effort to strengthen enforcement mechanisms available to federal authorities in policing unlawful interception of communications. Beyond this general historical backdrop, the record does not establish the specific legislative reasoning behind granting the Attorney General civil injunctive authority in this particular section, as opposed to relying solely on criminal enforcement. No committee report, sponsor statement, or other documented legislative history is available here to explain why Congress chose this particular remedy or the precise concerns that prompted its inclusion. Readers seeking that level of detail should consult the underlying legislative history directly.