Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Israel Alberto Rivas Gomez v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-653 · judgment April 23, 2025
Question presented
This Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, prescribed that “A suspect must be warned prior to any questioning . . . that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966) (emphasis added). The question presented asks: Whether law enforcement’s advisement to a defendant that entirely omits the “if he so desires” language regarding the right to appointed counsel satisfies law enforcement obligation to communicate the Miranda warning before interrogating an individual in its custody?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Ann Catherine McClintock
Federal Defender's Office
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Feb 23 2026Petition DENIED.
- Jan 15 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
- Jan 13 2026Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Dec 23 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 2, 2026)
- Sep 30 2025Application (25A369) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 28, 2025.
- Sep 26 2025Application (25A369) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 29, 2025 to December 28, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.