This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether the failure to explicitly invoke Miranda rights after an extended interrogation period amounts to a waiver.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Stevens, the central question is whether Thompkins’ silence for more than two hours after receiving Miranda warnings constitutes an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent, thereby requiring police to cease questioning.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Mary Berghuis, Warden)
According to MR. RESTUCCIA, the petitioner argues that an invocation of the right to remain silent must be unambiguous; mere silence, even over an extended period, does not automatically waive Miranda rights.
According to MR. RESTUCCIA, the petitioner emphasizes that the burden is on the suspect to make an affirmative, clear assertion to stop questioning.
Respondent (Van Chester Thompkins)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether Thompkins ever waived his rights, noting that he did not make an explicit waiver.
Justice Sotomayor asked how the limited responses could imply a waiver.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether a two‑and‑a‑quarter‑hour interrogation was excessively long.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the same argument would hold if the interrogation were compressed to 45 minutes.
Justices Sotomayor and Scalia discussed when police must stop questioning after a suspect remains silent following Miranda warnings.
Justice Breyer asked when, after two hours and fifteen minutes of answering, Thompkins actually waived his Miranda rights.
Justice Stevens referenced the respondent’s brief, asking whether Thompkins ever indicated a desire to remain silent during the two‑hour interrogation.
- [1] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 4
- [2] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 5
- [3] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 9
- [4] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 51
- [5] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 48
- [6] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 58
- [7] e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdf, p. 59
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e2e3d2a9b3d461509ae0-r1-a160f9b9dada48e6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.