October Term 2015 · Docket 14-1468

Can states criminally punish drivers for refusing blood tests?

Drivers argue criminal penalties for refusing blood tests violate the Fourth Amendment. States argue road use implies consent to testing.

Official caption
Birchfield v. North Dakota
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Charles Rothfeld argued the statutes make asserting a right a crime.

    Michael McCarthy argued the state statute creates a bargain with drivers.

    Keena argued rural realities make search warrants impractical in these situations.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether states can impose criminal penalties when drivers refuse blood alcohol tests. the sides that brought the case claim this violates their constitutional rights. the opposing sides claim road use creates implied consent to testing.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 20, 2016.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down criminal penalties for refusing blood tests.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold state laws that criminalize refusal of blood tests.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue criminalizing refusal punishes the exercise of a constitutional right.

the opposing sides argue using public roads implies consent to blood alcohol testing.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked what constitutional basis supports the right to drive.

Justice Kennedy asked why states cannot impose criminal sanctions if civil ones are allowed.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the scope of state power to compel bodily searches. It determines whether drivers face criminal charges for refusing blood tests. This affects public safety enforcement and individual privacy rights.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON