Another important U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month has been overshadowed by the controversy about overturning abortion rights.

Legal experts say the court has weakened the rights of people who've been arrested in its 6-3 decision in the case Vega v. Tekoh.

At issue was a landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, which prompted the statement police read to people as they're arrested, to inform them of their rights.

Vincent Bonventre, professor at Albany Law School, said the high court is making a distinction between Miranda protections and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"While an individual can sue under '1983' for a violation of his constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, the court said that the individual cannot sue under '1983' for violation of Miranda rights, because Miranda rights aren't constitutional rights," Bonventre explained.

The '1983' to which Bonventre refers is Section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, an amendment to the 1871 law which allows people to file lawsuits if they feel their constitutional rights have been violated.

The new ruling means in such cases, a person cannot sue law enforcement officials under federal civil-rights law for Miranda warning violations.

But Bonventre pointed out New York's Court of Appeals as well as other state courts can protect Miranda rights more than the Supreme Court, and without penalty. He does not think the Vega v. Tekoh decision will be as major a change to the legal system as it seems.

"The court did not have to rule this way," Bonventre emphasized. "The court could have said, 'Well, Miranda rights are important enough, and they are part of constitutional law, even though they are not the actual constitutional right. And therefore, we want to protect them by allowing individuals to sue when their Miranda rights are violated.' "

The original 1966 case has for decades provided a safeguard for people against the right to self-incrimination through forced confessions.

Groups fighting for a free and fair judicial system are speaking out against violence, threats and insults targeting judges in Indiana and across the country.

The number of threats spiked nationally earlier this year as President Donald Trump and his allies condemned jurists who blocked administration policies. The Indiana Supreme Court Security Committee oversees court security strategies. In 2024, 214 judicial officers reported they or their family members had received threats.

Paul Kiesel, attorney and founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Speak up for Justice, said these threats have far-reaching effects.

"The problem is, there's a lot of rhetoric about our judges," Kiesel pointed out. "We need to address it by all of us recognizing the importance of our justice system, and not getting on a bandwagon to start attacking our judges simply because we don't like their decisions."

Indiana judges, court staff and law enforcement are embracing training programs to address courtroom violence and emergencies, including threat prevention, response, and de-escalation techniques. Remote meetings are scheduled more often to lessen disruptions at in-person court hearings, particularly those involving children.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has retaliated against multiple law firms involved in his criminal prosecutions and impeachment trials by limiting their government contracts and blocking entry to federal buildings. Several firms sued and won an injunction. Other firms gave in and agreed to pay a large fine.

Kiesel argued when public officials attempt to smear judges, it undermines the rule of law.

"When the Homeland Secretary refers to a judge as an 'idiot' for feeling that individuals in this country are entitled to due process, we begin to denigrate the guardrail that is our justice system," Kiesel contended.

The security price tag for high-profile court cases can add up. Indiana's most recent example, the 2024 murder case of two Delphi Indiana girls, cost taxpayers nearly $720,000.


get more stories like this via email

By Garrett Bergquist for WISH-TV.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the WISH-TV-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration

Mentors who work with troubled youth on Tuesday said a proposed expansion of Marion County’s curfew might work but only if it’s combined with both enforcement and a place for children to go.

On Monday night, city-county councilors introduced a draft ordinance that would extend curfew hours for children under 18. Anyone under age 15 could not be in a public place anytime after 9 p.m., a change from the current 11 p.m. Children ages 15 to 17 could be in public places until 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 9 p.m. the rest of the week. The curfew for all ages would run until 5 a.m. The policy would apply throughout Marion County.

Kareem Hines, the founder of the New Breed of Youth mentoring and youth development program, said young people he’s talked to are still processing the trauma from the shooting early Saturday morning that killed two teens and wounded five others. He said the extended curfew hours should be enforced but the approach should not be punitive.

“These young people need a voice. They need to be heard. They need to be nurtured. I think they need to be cultivated and they need to be loved,” Hines said. “I know that might sound crazy after that mass shooting but if we’re going to round these young people up, I don’t think taking them to a detention center is the answer.”

The language of the ordinance exclude an enforcement mechanism.

Its author, Democratic Councilor Leroy Robinson, said he will consider adding enforcement language during the committee process. Robinson said that language could include fines for parents if their child repeatedly violates curfew or even getting the Marion County prosecutor and civil courts involved for the most serious cases.

The Rev. Charles Harrison of Indy Ten Point Coalition said curfews won’t do any good without an enforcement mechanism. He said the city has tackled the problem of lawless youth downtown before. Each time, he said the solution was a combination of rigorous curfew enforcement and working with community organizations such as churches to give youth a place to go.

“The problem is not just the youth downtown past curfew hours,” he said. “We have also a parenting issue when you have hundreds of unsupervised youth downtown.”

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officials have said the only place they can take young people who violate curfew is the family services center at the Community Justice Campus. Hines and Harrison both said churches and other community organizations could provide IMPD with an alternative. Hines said, even if it’s well past midnight, youth need a place where they can find food, connection or even activities until their parents or guardians can come pick them up.

“Now, I’ve established a connection where I’m loving on them but I’m still requiring them to sit and have a conversation with me over a meal,” Hines said. “You’d be surprised how I can hold a young person accountable over a meal.”

He said such places could even provide transportation home if necessary and then follow up with the child and their family a few days later to find out what else is going on in the child’s life that needs to be addressed.

The council’s next public safety committee hearing is scheduled for July 16, and the full council could vote on the proposal as early as its next meeting, set for Aug. 11.


Garrett Bergquist wrote this article for WISH-TV.


get more stories like this via email

A new law on the books will help Hoosier renters saddled with an eviction on their record get some relief.

Senate Bill 142, which took effect July 1, includes a provision allowing automatic dismissal of an eviction with some exceptions. Research site Eviction Lab reported nearly 71,000 filings in Indiana in 2024.

Jenny Terry, senior attorney for the nonprofit Indiana Legal services, said the eviction cases most eligible for sealing are those where the tenant never faced a legal judgment resulting in eviction.

"The case is filed as soon as the tenant gets behind in rent," Terry explained. "But whether it's because of rental assistance or just with additional time, the tenant is able to get caught up, and so that case is resolved."

The presence of the legal record on a case is still viewed by some landlords as an eviction even when the tenant did not leave, Terry pointed out. She added it may work against tenants seeking new housing opportunities.

Supporters of the law say an eviction permanently showing on a renter's record has more severe consequences than records of credit card debt or bankruptcy filings, which are deleted after seven years. Terry noted Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, helped move the bill forward amid some backlash.

"There was definitely was some debate about some aspects of the bill as it went through the legislature, but by and large, this was a bipartisan effort," Terry observed. "We were pleased that the next step was able to be taken with regard to this moving eviction sealing forward."

Under the law, new eviction cases will be sealed automatically if they were dismissed, the tenant won the case, or the case was overturned on appeal. Older cases can be sealed upon request if no money is owed or the case involves a matter other than rent and is older than seven years.

Eviction Lab data showed nearly 29,000 eviction filings to date as of June 1, 2025. Anyone needing more information can log on to IndianaLegalServices.org.


get more stories like this via email