Orin Kerr
@orinkerr.bsky.social
Professor, Stanford Law School.
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.
Author, The Digital 4th Amendment:
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Fourth-Amendment-Privacy-Policing/dp/0190627077/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.
Author, The Digital 4th Amendment:
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Fourth-Amendment-Privacy-Policing/dp/0190627077/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0
Chief Judge Colloton's concurrence in the judgment.
January 13, 2026 at 8:49 PM
Chief Judge Colloton's concurrence in the judgment.
Reposted by Orin Kerr
Years ago, I had an offer pulled from a journal because as the student editor apologetically explained, their professor approached them last minute with an article and they felt they had to defer.
January 10, 2026 at 3:26 PM
Years ago, I had an offer pulled from a journal because as the student editor apologetically explained, their professor approached them last minute with an article and they felt they had to defer.
Lordy, that is truly ridiculous. But emblematic of the problem.
January 10, 2026 at 9:03 PM
Lordy, that is truly ridiculous. But emblematic of the problem.
Related. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Editorial Bias in Legal Academia
In academia, journals serve as a proxy for quality, where prestigious journals are presumed to publish articles of higher quality than their less prestigious co
papers.ssrn.com
January 10, 2026 at 12:21 AM
Related. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
They had a warrant to search the phone.
January 9, 2026 at 11:58 AM
They had a warrant to search the phone.
BTW, this seems correct to me under Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987), where the person arrested really wanted to speak to his parents and officers allowed him to have that conversation—with officers recording the whole thing, and then using it against him. Held, no Miranda violation.
January 9, 2026 at 7:49 AM
BTW, this seems correct to me under Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987), where the person arrested really wanted to speak to his parents and officers allowed him to have that conversation—with officers recording the whole thing, and then using it against him. Held, no Miranda violation.
But people don't read summaries, either.
January 9, 2026 at 2:50 AM
But people don't read summaries, either.
I just wanted to understand your argument for why the decision is wrong, and I think you're now saying you think the ruling you said was bullshit is actually correct.
January 9, 2026 at 2:49 AM
I just wanted to understand your argument for why the decision is wrong, and I think you're now saying you think the ruling you said was bullshit is actually correct.
Yes, that's what I do, too. It's mostly loaded up in the mental RAM, and you present it in a way that seems to engage the audience most as you go.
January 9, 2026 at 12:20 AM
Yes, that's what I do, too. It's mostly loaded up in the mental RAM, and you present it in a way that seems to engage the audience most as you go.
The usual norms-based ways. Slight audience annoyance, a sense that the presentation wasn't necessarily a huge success, maybe a friend after saying, "ya know, you might think about presenting that a little differently," that sort of thing.
January 9, 2026 at 12:18 AM
The usual norms-based ways. Slight audience annoyance, a sense that the presentation wasn't necessarily a huge success, maybe a friend after saying, "ya know, you might think about presenting that a little differently," that sort of thing.
Got it. My point is that you wouldn't normally do that at a US law school. People would think you had stage fright and were too nervous to actually speak, and they would be annoyed that it was just a boring reading of script.
January 9, 2026 at 12:04 AM
Got it. My point is that you wouldn't normally do that at a US law school. People would think you had stage fright and were too nervous to actually speak, and they would be annoyed that it was just a boring reading of script.