In the 1985 case Michigan v. Jackson, the United States Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant asserts his right to counsel during an interrogation or preliminary hearing, any waiver of that right in response to subsequent police-initiated questioning is invalid unless the accused initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police. The decision was based on Sixth Amendment grounds and extended beyond Fifth Amendment Miranda rights. This ruling meant that once defendants have claimed their right to legal representation, law enforcement officers cannot initiate further discussions without counsel present even if defendants agree to talk without their lawyers present.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan v. Jackson, Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, argued that the majority's decision to extend Edwards v. Arizona was unnecessary and unsupported by precedent or logic. They contended that once a defendant has been arraigned and obtained counsel, there is no reason to presume that any subsequent waiver of his right to counsel during police-initiated questioning would be involuntary or unknowing. The dissenters believed this presumption could only be justified in situations where defendants were likely unaware of their rights - not when they had already exercised them by obtaining legal representation. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on "judicially created rules" rather than constitutional text or historical understanding in reaching its conclusion.