Dickerson v. United States: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Can Congress override the Supreme Court?

The U.S. Supreme Court

Grant Faint / Getty Images

In Dickerson v. United States (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not use legislation to supersede Supreme Court decisions on constitutional rules. The Court reaffirmed the ruling of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the primary guideline for the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation.

Fast Facts: Dickerson v. United States

Case Argued: April 19, 2000

Decision Issued: June 26, 2000

Petitioner: Charles Dickerson

Respondent:  United States

Key Questions: Can Congress overrule Miranda v. Arizona?

Majority Decision: Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer

Dissenting: Justices Scalia and Thomas

Ruling: Congress does not have the legislative power to supersede Miranda v. Arizona and its warnings with regard to admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation.


Facts of the Case

Charles Dickerson was indicted for a list of charges associated with bank robbery. At trial, his attorney argued that the statement he made to officers in an FBI field office was inadmissible in court under Miranda v. Arizona. Dickerson claimed that he had not received Miranda warnings before FBI interrogation. The FBI agents and local officers who had been present at the interrogation said that he had received the warnings.

The dispute rose to the District Court, then to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals found Dickerson had not received Miranda warnings, but that they were not necessary in his particular case. They referenced Section 3501 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which Congress had passed two years after Miranda v. Arizona in 1968. This legislation required that statements be made voluntarily in order for them to be used in a court of law, but did not require that Miranda warnings be read. According to the Court of Appeals, Dickerson’s statement was voluntary, and thus should not be suppressed.

The Court of Appeals also found that, because Miranda was not a question of constitutionality, Congress had the power to decide what types of warnings were required to make a statement admissible. The Supreme Court took on the case through a writ of certiorari.

Constitutional Issues

Can Congress create a new statute that (1) overrules Miranda v. Arizona and (2) establishes different guidelines for the admissibility of statements made during interrogation? Was the Miranda v. Arizona ruling based on a constitutional question?

The case asked the Court to reevaluate its role in overseeing questions of admissibility. Such questions typically fall to Congress, but Congress may not “legislatively supersede” Supreme Court decisions when those decisions analyze a constitutional rule.

The Arguments

The U.S. government argued that Dickerson was made aware of his Miranda rights before the interrogation at the FBI field office, despite the fact that these warnings were not necessary. Like the Court of Appeals, they referenced section 3501 of U.S.C. Title 18 to argue that a confession only has to be voluntary to be admissible in court, and that the confessor does not need to be notified of his Fifth Amendment rights prior to interrogation. They pointed out that the reading of the Miranda rights is only one of the factors, under section 3501, that points to the voluntariness of the confessor's statement. Additionally, attorneys on behalf of the U.S. government argued that Congress, not the Supreme Court, has the ultimate say on the rules that govern admissibility.

Dickerson’s attorney argued that the FBI agents and local law enforcement violated Dickerson’s right against self-incrimination when they failed to notify him of his Miranda rights (per Miranda v. Arizona). The intent of the court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona was to protect citizens from situations that increased the likelihood of false confessions. According to Dickerson's attorney, Dickerson should have been notified of his rights to alleviate the pressure of interrogation, regardless of whether his ultimate statement to officers was voluntary or not.

Majority Opinion

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the 7-2 decision. In the decision, the Court found that Miranda v. Arizona was based on a constitutional question, meaning that the Supreme Court had the final say over its interpretation, and Congress did not have the right to establish different guidelines for the admissibility of evidence.

The majority looked to the text of the Miranda decision. In Miranda, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, aimed to give “concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement” and found that unwarned confessions were taken from individuals under “unconstitutional standards.”

Dickerson v. United States also asked the Court to rule on the constitutionality of their original ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. In the majority opinion, the Justices chose not to overrule Miranda for a few reasons. First, the court applied stare decisis (a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided”), which asks the court to refer to past rulings in order to rule on a current case. Under stare decisis, overturning past decisions requires special justification. In this instance, the Court could not find special justification to overturn the Miranda v. Arizona, which by 2000 had become an important part of police practice and the wider national culture. Unlike some constitutional rules, the Court argued, the core of Miranda rights had been able to withstand challenges and exceptions. The majority explained:

“If anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision’s core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief.”

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. According to Scalia, the majority opinion was an act of “judicial arrogance.” Miranda v. Arizona only served to protect individuals from “foolish (rather than compelled) confessions.” In the dissent, Justice Scalia noted that he was “not persuaded” by the majority’s claim that Miranda was better than Congress’ alternative, and suggested that the majority’s attempt to ground its decision in stare decisis was useless. Justice Scalia wrote:


The Impact

In Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court asserted its authority over constitutional questions, reaffirming the role of Miranda v. Arizona in police practice. Through Dickerson, the Supreme Court emphasized the role of Miranda warnings in proactively protecting rights. The Court maintained that the "totality of the circumstances" approach, which Congress sought to implement, risked individual protections.


  • Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)