Vega v. Tekoh: The Supreme Court says Miranda warnings are not a constitutional right.
The Supreme Court took the first steps toward overruling Miranda v. Arizona on Thursday, declaring that suspects have no constitutional right to receive the famed Miranda warnings when they’re taken into custody. Its 6–3 decision in Vega v. Tekoh ensures that many suspects who are denied these warnings will have no legal recourse, even if they are wrongly convicted. Justice Sam Alito’s opinion for the court lays the groundwork for a more direct assault on Miranda itself, barely concealing the conservative majority’s contempt for the decision.
Vega revolves around the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination, which bars a defendant from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” For much of American history—and especially in the Jim Crow South—law enforcement officers coerced confessions from suspects using intimidation or outright violence. (These confessions were frequently false.) Courts were supposed to assess whether confessions were “voluntary,” but the secrecy of interrogation rooms, combined with the massive power imbalance between police and suspects, made this task impossible. In 1966, the Supreme Court tried to resolve this problem with Miranda, which required police to warn suspects that they have the right to remain silent and to access an attorney. The majority hoped that suspects would quickly acquire counsel, who would ensure that law enforcement did not coerce (or beat) a confession out of their client.
Over the last few decades, the Supreme Court has steadily retrenched from Miranda’s promise while purporting to uphold its bottom line. Most famously, in 2000’s Dickerson v. U.S., Chief Justice William Rehnquist reaffirmed the ruling, explaining that it had become “part of our national culture.” But Rehnquist called Mirandaa “constitutional rule,” a prophylactic measure that demands more than the Fifth Amendment actually requires. As Justice Antonin Scalia correctly pointed out in his Dickerson dissent, this ruling creates a puzzle: If Miranda warnings are not a constitutional right, where does the Supreme Court get the authority to demand them?
AdvertisementSCOTUS has danced around this question for more than two decades, but Vega put it front and center. Terence Tekoh alleges that he was interrogated in police custody without receiving Miranda warnings. During his interrogation, he wrote a confession that was used against him at trial (though he was acquitted). Tekoh filed suit under a law that allows individuals to sue in federal court when the police violate “a right secured by the Constitution.” He alleged that law enforcement infringed on his Miranda rights by soliciting and submitting an un-Mirandized confession.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAlito, writing for the conservative justices, rejected this argument in a brusque opinion that bristles with contempt for Miranda. “A violation of Miranda,” he declared, “is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment.” It is, rather, a “judicially crafted rule,” and before expanding or contracting it, the court must weigh “the benefits and costs” of altering its scope. Here, the “balance of interests” leans against extending Miranda: Doing so, Alito averred, would require a federal court to adjudicate a question “that had already been decided by a state court,” creating “unnecessary friction” between state and federal judiciaries.
AdvertisementThe most important part of Alito’s opinion, however, isn’t this analysis; it’s a drive-by attack on Miranda and Dickerson, much of which is relegated to a footnote. The assertion that SCOTUS can impose “prophylactic rules” on states and federal courts, the justice wrote, is “a bold and controversial claim of authority.” Whether the Supreme Court even “has the authority to create constitutionally based prophylactic rules that bind both federal and state courts,” he continued, “has been the subject of debate among jurists and commentators.” For support, he cited various critics of Miranda—including Scalia’s dissent in Dickerson. Alito then added ominously that whatever the merits of Miranda, “for the purpose of deciding this case, we follow its rationale.”
AdvertisementThe justice couldn’t be much clearer: He and his conservative colleagues think Miranda and Dickerson are wrong but aren’t yet willing to spend the political capital necessary to overrule them. They may have feared yet another fiery dissent from Justice Elena Kagan, who laid out the stakes bluntly at oral arguments: Eradicating Miranda warnings, she warned from the bench, would undermine “the legitimacy of the court” in a “profound sense.”
Advertisement AdvertisementHere is Justice Kagan’s extraordinary question—really, a declaration—about how overturning Miranda warnings would undermine “the legitimacy of the court” in a “profound sense” as “an institution and the role it plays in society.” From oral arguments yesterday in Vega v. Tekoh. pic.twitter.com/IDjsv0OLOg
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 21, 2022
This rhetoric was notably absent from Kagan’s actual dissent in Vega. The justice did not even respond to Alito’s anti-Mirandalanguage, preferring to pretend as though it did not exist. Instead, she explained why this “constitutional rule” gives suspects “a correlative right” to be “tried without the prosecutor using his un-Mirandized statement.” Put differently, a suspect has a “legally enforceable entitlement—in a word, a right—to have his confession excluded.” When that right is violated, the victim should be allowed to file suit.
Advertisement AdvertisementPopular in News & Politics
- Sure Sounds Like the Supreme Court Is About to Give Trump a Big Win!
- Trump Is Trying Something New With the 2024 Campaign. It’s Smart—and Terrifying.
- Did That Have to Happen at Columbia? No. Just Look at What Happened at Brown.
- We Can Learn a Lot From the Weird Crew That Keeps Showing Up to Trump’s Trial
By leaving Miranda on the books (for now), Vega still requires courts to suppress un-Mirandized statements during trial. As Kagan noted, though, sometimes “such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison.” Eventually, the defendant may get his conviction reversed. But thanks to Thursday’s decision, he will have no remedy “for all the harm he has suffered.”
Hollowing out rights by depriving victims of remedies is par for the course at this Supreme Court. So is inserting ominous criticisms of precedent in the nooks and crannies of an opinion, minimizing immediate public backlash while planting the seeds for a future, more radical decision. In Vega, Alito checks both boxes. It’s not hard to see what will come next: more decisions rolling back the constitutional safeguards against involuntary confessions, followed by a final blow to Miranda.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:产品中心)
- Table tennis star Shin Yu
- Derek Chauvin's defense rests after he declines to take the stand.
- 交流、学习、借鉴!预制“汕品”借甘企食材和技艺提香增鲜
- No breakthrough for inter
- Families of S. Korean detainees in NK appeal to embassies for support
- A Global Tour of Bakeries With Fascinating Histories
- Trump blasts McConnell in front of RNC donors: “Dumb son of a bitch.”
- 水津关青衣江特大桥双幅贯通
- Biden makes strong case for engagement, but North Korea unlikely to react soon: experts
- 11 Telescopes Exploring The Magic of Space
- The History of the Microprocessor and the Personal Computer
- Why you can orgasm from masturbation but struggle to come during sex
- More than 70 middle school students injured on way back from school trip
-
Trump won't stop making a deceptive bird claim. Experts debunk it.
Billions of birds are likely killed in the U.S. each year — but contrary to popular claims, wi ...[详细] -
Twitter has always been a trash fire. Musk won't snuff it out
Since he took ownership of Twitter three disastrous weeks ago, Elon Musk has been telling on himself ...[详细] -
Netflix has a trivia game you can play right now
If you've already seen all the movies and TV shows on Netflix (we sincerely doubt it), maybe you wan ...[详细] -
How to stay protected during the busiest shopping period of the year
The holiday season is a wonderful time of year. Summer is upon us, families are getting together, an ...[详细] -
12 Places that Celebrate Women in Science
Advancements in science and medicine have been pivotal to the betterment of the modern world, and ma ...[详细] -
Putin calls for guaranteeing North Korea's security to resolve nuclear quandary
Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures as he speaks at the St. Petersburg International Economic ...[详细] -
US waiting to see if North Korea wants to engage in diplomacy
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends a news conference with Britain's Foreign Secretary Do ...[详细] -
Testing AMD's new Radeon Image Sharpening: Is It Better than Nvidia's DLSS?
Today we're taking a deeper look into one of the new features that shipped with AMD's latest Navi GP ...[详细] -
7 Reasons to Explore Boston’s Lesser
Boston is brimming with popular and important historic sites, from Faneuil Hall and Boston Common to ...[详细] -
The Derek Chauvin verdict isn’t justice.
I was standing outside of the Ferguson, Missouri, police department on a chilly night in November 20 ...[详细]
- Tesla's big software update includes something called 'Night Curfew'
- Twitter brings back gray checkmark for 'Official' accounts
- REI outdoor sale: Get 40% off REI camping and hiking gear
- Instagram Influencer Ramon Abbas jailed over massive fraud
- 'Please find her': Man dies amid 25
- What are police thinking? A culture of fear makes everyone unsafe.
- Slate News Quiz: Derek Chauvin, Whole Foods, Walter Mondale.