Police cannot be sued for failing to read criminal defendants their Miranda warnings, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week, Bloomberg Law reports. In a 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines, the court said its landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for criminal defendants to bring civil rights suits against police for not providing warnings against self-incrimination. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said Miranda warnings are meant to prevent improper police questioning and the use of statements obtained during such interrogations. A violation of the rules doesn’t itself run afoul of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. “Those rules, to be sure, are ‘constitutionally based,’ but they are prophylactic rules nonetheless,” Alito said. Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the court’s ruling “prevents individuals from obtaining any redress when police violate their rights under Miranda.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down New York’s requirement that “proper cause” must be shown to obtain a concealed-carry gun license, ABA Journal reports. The 6-3 decision ruled that New York’s law violated Second Amendment protections of a person’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. The New York law at issue required proper cause for concealed-carry licenses but banned the open carry of firearms entirely. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the decision “severely burdens states’ efforts” to address violence with gun laws. Attorney General Herbert Slatery today commended the high court for its decision. Tennessee previously joined 25 states in an amicus brief supporting the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Maine education policy that made K-12 schools with religious instruction ineligible for taxpayer-backed tuition aid, continuing the conservative majority court’s general trend of ruling for religious interests, The Hill reports. Though the case does not affect Tennessee, some observers says it bolsters that state’s arguments for a robust school choice program. The court also ruled that non-citizens can be detained indefinitely under federal immigration law without bond hearings and that federal judges lack the authority to order the government to release immigrants who have been detained without hearings on a class-wide basis. Read more about that decision from Reuters.

The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed an effort by Republican attorneys general to mount a legal defense of a Trump-era immigration restriction that the Biden administration has since rescinded and declined to defend in court. The case was procedural in nature, The Hill reports, but at its heart was the so-called “public charge rule.” The 2019 rule imposed additional restrictions on poorer immigrants until the Biden administration ended the policy last year. The justices’ decision leaves in place a lower appeals court decision that went against the attorneys general.

A California resident has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly telling officials he wanted to kill U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, The Hill reports. The suspect, identified as 26-year-old California resident Nicholas John Roske, called 911 from near the justice’s home, allegedly saying he was having suicidal thoughts and intended to kill Kavanaugh. He also allegedly told a detective that he was upset about the leak of a recent draft court opinion on abortion and the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Roske appeared in a Maryland federal court today. He could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

The lack of an ethics code for U.S. Supreme Court justices is “unimaginable,” U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said during a conference in Chicago on the independence of the federal judiciary. Walton said some might consider his remarks "heresy" but he saw no reason justices should not be subject to the conduct code as lower-court judges. "If the perception of the American public is that we have a segment of our judiciary that's not policing itself adequately because it has no rules that dictate how they are to conduct themselves, I think it does create a real problem," Walton said. Reuters has more on the story.

In an appeal from the 9th Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week held that a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or consider evidence beyond that developed in the state court record based on the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. The respondents, both Arizona prisoners convicted of capital offenses, had filed for federal habeas relief on the basis that trial counsel had been ineffective and that post-conviction counsel had, in turn, been ineffective by failing to properly present those claims in state court. As a result, the claims had been procedurally defaulted. In district court, respondents were permitted to supplement the record with evidence not presented in state court in order to show cause to excuse the procedural default; in one case, the 9th Circuit remanded for further evidentiary development. In its reversal, the court reiterated the standard that "[w]ith respect to cause, attorney error cannot provide cause to excuse a default in proceedings for which the Constitution does not guarantee the assistance of counsel at all." Read more from SCOTUSblog.

Gail Curley, a former Army colonel and military lawyer and current Marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court, has been asked to lead the investigation into the leak of a draft opinion that suggests the high court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. Experts say leaking the draft opinion likely wasn’t a crime, and Curley’s investigative tools are limited. She could theoretically hire an outside law firm to assist or, as in some other judicial records cases, call in the FBI. But it isn’t clear if she or others have the power to issue subpoenas to get material from journalists or the fewer than 100 people in the court — including justices — with access to a draft opinion. The Associated Press has more on Curley’s career.

U.S. Supreme Court justices will receive around-the-clock security at home, among other protections, following a leaked draft opinion advocating overturning abortion rights. According to Bloomberg Law, U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the U.S. Marshals Service to step up personal protection for the nine justices last week. Garland held a meeting this week between the Justice Department and court officials to discuss coordination and intelligence sharing. “The rise of violence and unlawful threats of violence directed at those who serve the public is unacceptable and dangerous to our democracy,” Garland said in a release. “I want to be clear: while people vote, argue, and debate in a democracy, we must not — we cannot — allow violence or unlawful threats of violence to permeate our national life.” Barriers also have been set up in front of the court to protect the historic building.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday limited the ability of federal courts to review certain factual findings in immigration proceedings that determine whether noncitizens will be deported or allowed to remain in the country. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal law prevents review of factual findings that are connected to the executive branch’s judgments about granting discretionary immigration relief. “Federal courts have a very limited role to play in this process,” Barrett wrote. “With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal.” Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the court’s three more liberal justices in dissent. Read more in SCOTUSBlog.