Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

again  acknowledging  that  Miranda  adopted  prophylactic 
rules,  the  Court  balanced  the  competing  interests  and
found that the costs of adopting the warden’s argument out-
weighed  any  benefits.  On  the  cost  side,  the  Court  noted 
that  enforcing  Miranda  “safeguards  ‘a  fundamental  trial 
right” and furthers “the correct ascertainment of guilt” at 
trial.  507  U. S.,  at  691–692.    And  on  the  other  side,  the 
Court  found  that  the adoption  of  a  Stone-like  rule  “would 
not significantly benefit the federal courts in their exercise 
of habeas jurisdiction, or advance the cause of federalism in 
any substantial way.”  507 U. S., at 693. 

Thus,  all  the  post-Miranda  cases  we  have  discussed 
acknowledged the prophylactic nature of the Miranda rules 
and engaged in cost-benefit analysis to define the scope of 
these prophylactic rules. 

E 
Contrary  to  the  decision  below  and  Tekoh’s  argument
here, see Brief for Respondent 24, our decision in Dickerson, 
530 U. S. 428, did not upset the firmly established prior un-
derstanding of Miranda as a prophylactic decision.  Dicker-
son involved a federal statute, 18 U. S. C. §3501, that effec-
tively overruled Miranda by making the admissibility of a 
statement given during custodial interrogation turn solely
on whether it was made voluntarily.  530 U. S., at 431–432. 
The Court held that Congress could not abrogate Miranda 
by statute because Miranda was a “constitutional decision” 
that adopted a “constitutional rule,” 530 U. S., at 438–439,
and the Court noted that these rules could not have been 
made applicable to the States if it did not have that status, 
see ibid. 

At the same time, however, the Court made it clear that 
it was not equating a violation of the Miranda rules with 
an outright Fifth Amendment violation.  For one thing, it 
reiterated  Miranda’s  observation  that  “the  Constitution 
would not preclude legislative solutions that differed from