What legal requirement was established by Miranda v. Arizona?

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court established that individuals taken into custody must be informed of their rights prior to being interrogated. This includes the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, commonly referred to as Miranda rights. The rationale behind this ruling is to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, ensuring that individuals are fully aware of their legal rights and the implications of answering questions from law enforcement before they are compelled to do so. This legal requirement is critical to upholding due process and ensuring that any statements made by individuals during interrogation can be considered voluntary and informed.

The other options do not pertain to the legal principles established in Miranda v. Arizona. The concept of "separate but equal" relates to civil rights decisions, judicial review involves the authority of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts, and discussions about political parties are unrelated to the rights of individuals in custody and interrogation settings.