Resource: Rehnquist’s Views on the Miranda Decision

Print Background Essay

One of the Supreme Court justices appointed by President Richard Nixon was William Rehnquist. Rehnquist was a “strict constructionist,” a philosophy that he carried with him through his long service on the Court. He believed the Constitution should be interpreted in the plain language it was written in, not beyond that. For example, he had a very narrow view of the Fourteenth Amendment. He thought that it was only meant to address the problems of former slaves, not to give basic rights to all citizens. Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong wrote in 1979 that Rehnquist was the most conservative of Nixon’s appointees and that he “almost always voted with the prosecution in criminal cases, with business in antitrust cases, with employers in labor cases, and with the government in speech cases.”

Prior to his appointment and in the early days of his term on the Court, Rehnquist openly criticized the Warren Court, including its now famous Miranda decision. Decided in 1966, Miranda was based on the premise that people are entitled to the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and to the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney as soon as law enforcement officers begin to interrogate them in custody. The ruling also requires:

• Police must warn suspects that their statements may be used against them in court.
• If suspects waive these rights, those waivers must be made “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Police must inform suspects that even after they waive their rights, they are entitled to request a lawyer later at any point during the interrogation, at which point the interview can only continue in the presence of a lawyer.
• Without these timely warnings from police, it can be presumed that statements made in custodial interrogation were made involuntarily and are, therefore inadmissible in state and federal courts.

Rehnquist thought the decision intruded on the affairs of local law enforcement, in other words, “telling cops what to do.” Where in the Constitution are the words “warning” or “custodial interrogation” or even “waiver of rights?” He thought the Court created rights that were not in the Constitution.

While Rehnquist’s views were consistent with a conservative philosophy, his tenure on the Court proved that ideological labels like “liberal” and “conservative” often oversimplify. He proved that no one, not even the president, can predict with any certainly what a judge will or will not decide.

Rehnquist had an opportunity to reverse Miranda when a case known as Dickerson v. United States reached the Court in 2000. Instead, he wrote the opinion upholding Miranda saying “… We do not think there is such a justification for overruling Miranda. Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture…”

Print Questions for Discussion

• Why was it important for Nixon and others on the Right to have conservative justices on the Supreme Court?
• Why did conservatives want Miranda overturned?
• What do you think the Court decided in the Dickerson case?