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 held that a Miranda violation does not give rise to a civil‑rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Background and question before the Court
The Ninth Circuit held that a violation of Miranda constitutes a Fifth Amendment violation.
According to Petitioner, the case presented the question of whether a violation of Miranda can serve as the basis for a § 1983 claim.
What each side argues
Tekoh
According to Tekoh, a violation of Miranda constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self‑incrimination.
Petitioner
According to Petitioner, the Ninth Circuit's extension of Miranda into § 1983 litigation is inconsistent with settled precedent and sound policy; the Court should reverse.
According to Petitioner, Tekoh now concedes that the Ninth Circuit's proximate‑causation holding is wrong, providing a complete basis for reversal; officers cannot be held liable for mistakes made by prosecutors and judges.
Mr. Suri
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Mr. Hoffman
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The case was heard before the Supreme Court at 10:00 a.m. on the oral‑argument date.
The case was submitted at 11:21 a.m.
What the Court decided
We hold that it does not.
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.
- 169c3775ad9d4ee41e34-r1-ec32c9c02a714870.pdforal argument transcript
- 61a021874da600784e6c-r1-5b39af57a191e4ff.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.