Congruence, Proportionality, and Dickerson

[Parry, John]

A student submitted the following question:

"Suppose that Congress, pursuant to its section 5 power, decided to enact a
law that protected the rights of accused persons above and beyond Miranda
warnings.  In Dickerson, the Court explicitly stated that Congress could
constitutionally enact such legislation, but Boerne seems to suggest that
where Congress engages in lawmaking that substantially reworks a
constitutional decision of the Court, the Court will hold that the
legislature has exceeded its authority.  In light of this, how should we
expect the Court to address this type of legislation?"

My answer was along the following lines:  1) Miranda said legislators can
displace the warnings with something that is at least equally effective, and
Dickerson seems to endorse this language -- so there seems to be some
endorsement of the idea that Congress could expand the coverage of Miranda.
2) Congress could take this step with respect to federal criminal
investigations.  3) With respect to the states, the court would probably
agree that Congress has room to go beyond Miranda, but whatever Congress
does must be congruent and proportional, and Miranda would turn out to be
pretty close to the limit of what is congruent and proportional.

I wonder whether my answer is sufficiently responsive to the question (not
to mention substantively correct) and, more particularly, whether the
question itself raises issues of interest.

********************************************
John T. Parry
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
3900 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA  15260
412-648-7006
parry at law.pitt.edu
********************************************