Monday, the Supreme Court reasserted its dominion over Congress, striking down a ruling based on a congressional explication of constitutional rights. By a 7-2 majority, the Court dismissed a controversial appeals court decision that called into question the validity of so-called Miranda rights, which were established by the Warren Supreme Court in 1966 to ensure that those who became involved with law enforcement agencies knew they had the "right to remain silent."
Lawyers for Charles Dickerson, a Maryland man accused of several bank robberies in Virginia and Maryland, sought to dismiss his incriminating statements because he had not been read his Miranda rights before the police questioned him. The appeals court, known for its conservative stance, ruled against the defense, calling on a largely ignored piece of 1968 legislation that, among other things, deemed the reading of rights unnecessary in certain situations. That legislation, declared Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, was moot, because "Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution." Rehnquist's appearance among the left-leaning majority was a surprise to some legal analysts; Justices Scalia and Thomas took up the opposing side.
For those who believe Miranda has come to represent little more than a legal loophole for criminals lucky enough to be questioned by cops who forget to read them their rights, the Justices' decision is a serious blow. Miranda advocates, including many defense lawyers, are thrilled — with good reason. After such a resounding Supreme Court ruling, it's unlikely there will be any serious threats to Miranda in the near future. A case may eventually come along, Rehnquist wrote in his opinion, that will merit a total overhaul of the Miranda system. Such a case, he added, has yet to materialize.