The Stanford Daily filed a suit claiming that under the protection of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the warrants were unconstitutional and that the searches should have fallen under the context of subpoenas.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted declaratory relief to The Stanford Daily and held that a warrant for the search of a third party not suspected of criminal activity (a "nonsuspect third party") is forbidden by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments unless there is probable cause to find a subpoena duces tecum to be impracticable.

"[14] The majority was also careful to note that while "scrupulous exactitude" is required in these instances, there is no constitutional basis for forbidding warrants when the First Amendment is implicated altogether.

[16] The dissenting opinion authored by Justices Stewart and Marshall focused on the burden that the court's ruling imposed on freedom of the press and conveyed the belief that a subpoena would be just as effective as a warrant in criminal investigations requiring information from nonsuspect third parties.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens expressed concern about the implications of subjecting "countless law-abiding citizens—doctors, lawyers, merchants, customers, bystanders—[who] may have documents in their possession that relate to an ongoing criminal investigation" to unannounced searches and seizures.

"[21] Congress reacted to the Supreme Court's opinion in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily by passing the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.

[25] In a message to Congress on April 2, 1979, Carter wrote about the dangers to the "effective functioning of our free press" raised by the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily decision.

[26] He also wrote that the issues raised in the case "require new, stringent safeguards against Federal, state and local governmental intrusion into First Amendment activities.

[27] Litigation for issues similar to those raised in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily have been decided in the wake of the enactment of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.

For example, in Wyoming v. Houghton, the Supreme Court cited Zurcher v. Stanford Daily to define the elements for a reasonable search.