Professor, Stanford Law School. Author, The Digital 4th Amendment: https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Fourth-Amendment-Privacy-Policing/dp/0190627077/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0
Orin Samuel Kerr is an American legal scholar known for his studies of American criminal procedure and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as computer crime law and internet surveillance. He has been a professor of law at Stanford Law School since 2025. Kerr is one of the contributors to the law-oriented blog titled The Volokh Conspiracy. .. more
Reposted by Orin S. Kerr
Reposted by Pamela Samuelson, Orin S. Kerr
Reposted by Richard S.J. Tol, Orin S. Kerr, Daniel W. Drezner
![MEMORANDUM OPINION
By way of context, a federal prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. The obligation to govern impartially concerns, above all, the state's exercise of coercive power-meaning its power to deprive its subjects of life, liberty, or property... As a representative of the state, a prosecutor's exercise of coercive power must be impartial ... [in] that prosecutorial power may not be exercised vindictivelymeaning that the prosecutor may not punish a defendant for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.
United States v. Zakhari, 85 F.4th 367, 384-85 (6th Cir. 2023) (Kethledge, J., concurring) (citations and quotations omitted). This context frames review of Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's ("Abrego") motion to dismiss his indictment for vindictive and selective
prosecution. (Doc. Nos. 104-05). The Government opposes the motion (Doc. No. 121), and Abrego has replied (Doc. No. 127). Abrego's motion is not ripe for decision because he seeks discovery and an evidentiary hearing because there is some evidence of vindictiveness here. For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that the totality of events creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" that entitles Abrego to discovery and requires an evidentiary hearing before the Court decides his motion. United States
v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 457 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 (1981).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/bafkreiay66rk6mqrqr2pwlbmqyf4mkqnbj5auaxcwhbsm6fwcwiyhmbr34@jpeg)
Reposted by Orin S. Kerr
