Prophylactic rule
Legal rule which overprotects a constitutional right
A prophylactic rule is a judicially crafted rule that protects a constitutional right, by providing consequences for violations of that right, in order to safeguard that constitutional right or improve detection of violations of that right.
In United States law, an example is the case of Miranda v. Arizona, which adopted a prophylactic rule ("Miranda warnings") to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule, which restricts admissibility of evidence in court, is also sometimes considered to be a prophylactic rule. The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have argued against them, writing that the ability of judges to create these rules "is an immense and frightening antidemocratic power, and it does not exist."
Sources and credits
This article is adapted from the Wikipedia article “Prophylactic rule”, written by its contributors and licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Fathomly has changed the layout, removed citation markers, navigation and maintenance notices, and adjusted punctuation. This adapted version is shared under the same license. For references, see the original article.
Fathomly is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Spotted a problem? Tell us.