Today in History: Supreme Court rules in Miranda v. Arizona
Today is Friday, June 13, the 164th day of 2025. There are 201 days left in the year.
Today in history:
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal suspects had to be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney.
Also on this date:
In 1942, during World War II, a four-man Nazi sabotage team arrived by submarine on Long Island, New York, three days before a second four-man team landed in Florida. (All eight men were arrested within weeks, after two members of the first group defected.)
In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to become the first non-white justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1971, The New York Times began publishing excerpts of the Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of America's involvement in Vietnam since 1945, that had been leaked to the paper by military analyst Daniel Ellsberg.
In 1983, the U.S. space probe Pioneer 10, launched in 1972, became the first spacecraft to leave the solar system as it crossed the orbit of Neptune.
In 1996, the 81-day-old Freemen standoff in Montana ended as the 16 remaining members of the anti-government group left their ranch and surrendered to the FBI.
In 2000, the first meeting between leaders of North Korea and South Korea since the Korean War began as South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung met North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il in Pyongyang.
In 2013, the White House said it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's government had used chemical weapons against opposition forces seeking to overthrow him.
In 2022, the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was told that Donald Trump's closest campaign advisers, top government officials and even his family were dismantling his false claims of 2020 election fraud ahead of the insurrection, but the defeated president was becoming 'detached from reality' and clinging to outlandish theories to stay in power.
Today's Birthdays: Actor Malcolm McDowell is 82. Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is 81. Actor Stellan Skarsgård is 74. Actor Richard Thomas is 74. Former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Weaver is 74. Actor-comedian Tim Allen is 71. Actor Ally Sheedy is 63. Sportscaster Hannah Storm is 63. Musician Rivers Cuomo (Weezer) is 55. Actor-comedian Steve-O is 51. Actor Ethan Embry is 47. Actor Chris Evans is 44. Actor Kat Dennings is 39. Fashion designers and former actors Ashley Olsen and Mary-Kate Olsen are 38. Actor Aaron Taylor-Johnson is 35. Actor Kodi Smit-McPhee is 29.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
No more LGBTQ brainwashing — SCOTUS school smackdown revives parents' rights
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a sweeping victory for parental rights and religious freedom — and dealt a devastating blow to the progressive zealots bent on brainwashing America's children. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Montgomery County, Md., parents fought their local school board over a policy requiring young children to read books centered on LGBTQ+ identity. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents, who sought the right to opt their kids out of lessons that undermine their religious beliefs. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito let the books speak for themselves via color reproductions of their pages. There was no better way to demonstrate that these were not books promoting tolerance and acceptance, but radical attempts at indoctrination. 'Pride Puppy,' part of the district's kindergarten curriculum, includes a word search listing topics detailed in the book's illustrations: drag king, drag queen, high heels, lip ring, lace, leather. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. Another book, 'Born Ready,' features a very young child who identifies as transgender. In it, the character's older brother protests, 'This doesn't make sense. You can't become a boy. You have to be born one.' Their mother scolds him: 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' The message is clear: If you want issues of sex and gender to make sense, you aren't a loving person. The school board, Alito wrote, 'encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being 'hurtful' when they express a degree of religious confusion.' They use the books to do it. At the heart of the case was the claim that parents' religious rights were being violated. But the deeper reality remained unspoken: The school-district progressives weren't simply undermining the beliefs of Muslim, Christian and Mormon parents. They were trying to induct the children of these families into their own ideology — one that dismisses biological reality and enshrines 'love,' as they define it, as the only acceptable truth. The conflict also exposed a stark divide between the progressive activists who run the county school system and the religious, largely immigrant families the district serves. Accustomed to lockstep minority support, leftist county officials were blindsided when the communities they claim to represent pushed back. And when the minority parents protested, the progressives lashed out. The curriculum dispute 'puts some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots,' Montgomery County Council member Kristin Mink complained in one contentious public meeting. School board member Lynne Harris disparaged a Muslim student who testified at another meeting, telling the press she felt 'kind of sorry' for the girl and speculating she was 'parroting dogma' she'd learned from her parents. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded apologies from both officials. When progressives rallied outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, speaker after speaker insisted the district's policy was about teaching tolerance to children of supposedly bigoted parents. After the ruling came down, the district declared in an email to staff, 'This decision complicates our work creating a welcoming, inclusive and equitable school system.' But if tolerance and inclusivity were truly its goals, the county would have sought to respect the values of religious families. No, the objective was ideological control over every child in the county's schools. The progressive activists' message was brutally simple: Our way or the highway. This is what we do in public schools. If you don't like it, you can pay to educate your kids privately, or homeschool them yourself. Alito flatly rejected that argument. 'Public education is a public benefit,' he wrote, 'and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.' In addition, he observed, 'since education is compulsory, the parents are not being asked simply to forgo a public benefit.' This case laid bare the hypocrisy of progressive ideology — and the flimsiness of those convictions when challenged. Progressives in Montgomery County had a choice: To respect the religious beliefs of minority families, or to force them to abandon those beliefs and cave to leftist views on gender and sexuality. Or, of course, the district could have dropped its leftist indoctrination mission altogether. Rather than offering an unbiased public education to these low-income, immigrant religious families, school officials told them to leave if they wouldn't comply. Mahmoud v. Taylor revealed the left's true colors on tolerance and privilege. But with its decision, the Supreme Court sent an unmistakable message: Parents' rights are not subject to the whims of progressive activists — and they don't evaporate at the schoolhouse door. Bethany Mandel writes and podcasts at The Mom Wars.
Atlantic
33 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
