Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Dickerson v. United States, in which the confession of a bank robbery suspect in Virginia was suppressed because it was obtained before he was read his rights. In the 7-2 decision, the high court has effectively put an end to speculation over the famous Miranda warnings. The 1966 Miranda vs. Arizona was a landmark case, requiring police to inform suspects of their rights. However, just two years later Congress passed a law that allowed "voluntary" confessions to be used even without the Miranda warning. This law was almost forgotten until recently, when it became the basis for the appeal in the Dickerson case. In striking down the "voluntary confession clause," the Court not only indicated its respect for precedent, but also reasserted its role as the final arbiter of the Constitution. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a previous critics of Miranda, wrote, "we conclude that Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively." Justices Scalia and Thomas issued a bitter dissenting opinion that, among other things, accused their colleagues of "judicial arrogance." The ruling was warmly welcomed by the Clinton Administration, especially the Attorney General, and the majority of the nation's media.