Dickerson v. United States
E47190
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Dickerson v. United States canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T371061 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Dickerson v. United States Context triple: [Miranda v. Arizona, relatedCase, Dickerson v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Dickerson v. United States Target entity description: Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
ⓘ
exclusionary rule ⓘ police interrogation ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2000-04-19 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtTimeOfDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| citation |
120 S. Ct. 2326
ⓘ
147 L. Ed. 2d 405 ⓘ 530 U.S. 428 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedDate | 2000-06-26 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2000-06-26 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 99-5525 ⓘ |
| holding |
18 U.S.C. § 3501 is unconstitutional to the extent it conflicts with Miranda
ⓘ
Miranda v. Arizona announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede by statute ⓘ statements taken without Miranda warnings are generally inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief ⓘ |
| impact |
limited congressional power to overrule constitutional criminal procedure decisions
ⓘ
reaffirmed the requirement that law enforcement give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation ⓘ |
| joinedByInDissent | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States federal courts
ⓘ
linked to:
federal judiciary of the United States
|
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutional status of Miranda warnings
ⓘ
validity of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 ⓘ whether Congress could overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ⓘ |
| petitioner | Charles Thomas Dickerson ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Michigan v. Tucker
ⓘ
Miranda v. Arizona ⓘ New York v. Quarles ⓘ Oregon v. Elstad ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| reversedOrAffirmed | reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ⓘ |
| statuteInQuestion | 18 U.S.C. § 3501 ⓘ |
| term | October Term 1999 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Dickerson v. United States Description of subject: Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
→
significantCase
→
Dickerson v. United States
ⓘ