Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

VEGA v. TEKOH 

Opinion of the Court 

the prescribed Miranda warnings but which were ‘at least
as  effective  in  apprising  accused  persons’ ”  of  their  rights. 
530 U. S., at 440 (quoting Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467).

Even more to the point, the Court rejected the dissent’s
argument that §3501 could not be held unconstitutional un-
less “Miranda warnings are required by the Constitution,
in the sense that nothing else will suffice to satisfy consti-
tutional requirements.”  530 U. S., at 442.  The Court’s an-
swer, in substance, was that the Miranda rules, though not 
an  explication  of  the  meaning  of  the  Fifth  Amendment 
right, are rules that are necessary to protect that right (at 
least until a better alternative is found and adopted).  See 
530 U. S., at 441–443.  Thus, in the words of the Dickerson 
Court, the Miranda rules are “constitutionally based” and
have “constitutional underpinnings.”  530 U. S., at 440, and 
n. 5.  But  the  obvious  point  of  these  formulations  was  to 
avoid saying that a Miranda violation is the same as a vio-
lation of the Fifth Amendment right. 

What all this boils down to is basically as follows.  The 
Miranda rules are prophylactic rules that the Court found
to  be  necessary  to  protect  the  Fifth  Amendment  right
against  compelled  self-incrimination.  In  that  sense,  Mi-
randa was a “constitutional decision” and it adopted a “con-
stitutional  rule”  because  the  decision  was  based  on  the 
Court’s judgment about what is required to safeguard that
constitutional right.  And when the Court adopts a consti-
tutional  prophylactic  rule  of  this  nature,  Dickerson  con-
cluded,  the  rule  has  the  status  of  a  “La[w]  of  the  United 
States” that is binding on the States under the Supremacy
Clause 4 (as Miranda implicitly held, since three of the four
decisions  it  reversed  came  from  state  court,  384  U. S.,  at 
491–494, 497–499), and the rule cannot be altered by ordi-
nary legislation. 

—————— 

4 U. S. Const., Art. VI, §2.