Oren Kerr

Agreed. It would be one thing if they – were strong on the good faith exception and then rejected qualified immunity or vice versa. But instead, they are weak on both. I think basically the current justices are just not really comfortable with remedies in Fourth Amendment cases, or at least they have the same instincts in the civil and criminal setting.

So you end up in both contexts sort of avoiding merits rulings that would clarify the law.

So you end up in both contexts sort of avoiding merits rulings that would clarify the law.

I can imagine, too, some sort of a causation like inquiry, which I guess some of the lower courts had suggested, you know, maybe causation where you have some sort of you treat the issue well that you raised. To what extent is this the officer sort of doing the officer's task versus something maybe that's outside of that task? You can imagine that being relevant to it as well.

I can imagine, too, some sort of a causation like inquiry, which I guess some of the lower courts had suggested, you know, maybe causation where you have some sort of you treat the issue well that you raised. To what extent is this the officer sort of doing the officer's task versus something maybe that's outside of that task? You can imagine that being relevant to it as well.

And maybe some future cases will ultimately resolve that. I just doubt. I'm expecting a very, very short totality of circumstances. Now, go figure this out below kind of opinion.

And maybe some future cases will ultimately resolve that. I just doubt. I'm expecting a very, very short totality of circumstances. Now, go figure this out below kind of opinion.

Yeah. I mean, they were clearly interested in trying to lay out more rules beyond just send it back on a reasonable standard. I didn't think there was any clear alternative that emerged, and just the lack of an alternative... Unless they somehow decide, as we'll suggest, like spend a lot of time on this and really come to some conclusion that was not obvious that the oral argument is possible.

Yeah. I mean, they were clearly interested in trying to lay out more rules beyond just send it back on a reasonable standard. I didn't think there was any clear alternative that emerged, and just the lack of an alternative... Unless they somehow decide, as we'll suggest, like spend a lot of time on this and really come to some conclusion that was not obvious that the oral argument is possible.

But I didn't see the interest in that, at least in the argument.

But I didn't see the interest in that, at least in the argument.

Yeah, there's no shortage of issues, and there's some interesting petitions up there. The court called for response recently on a case involving the standard for emergency entry. Not a tech case, but there's a split on the standard for emergency entry. Issues there, but we don't have signs yet that there's something that they really are – raring to go on right now.

Yeah, there's no shortage of issues, and there's some interesting petitions up there. The court called for response recently on a case involving the standard for emergency entry. Not a tech case, but there's a split on the standard for emergency entry. Issues there, but we don't have signs yet that there's something that they really are – raring to go on right now.

Yes. I guess yes and yes. So I don't think these are the issues that they're going to want to take on. I don't think they feel that – I think there's sort of a hard thing to do, right? You've got to imagine what are the things that a group of nine people or six people or whatever the number is care about and think they really need to make changes on.

Yes. I guess yes and yes. So I don't think these are the issues that they're going to want to take on. I don't think they feel that – I think there's sort of a hard thing to do, right? You've got to imagine what are the things that a group of nine people or six people or whatever the number is care about and think they really need to make changes on.

And I suspect this is just not a set of issues that they – that they want, that they care about, that they, I think that's just not that. Now that's just my prediction could be wrong, but I, I just, I don't see it. Whereas I think it's different too. Like with, with Dobbs, you could see that coming like a mile away. Like,

And I suspect this is just not a set of issues that they – that they want, that they care about, that they, I think that's just not that. Now that's just my prediction could be wrong, but I, I just, I don't see it. Whereas I think it's different too. Like with, with Dobbs, you could see that coming like a mile away. Like,

that was going to be a big issue and you could count the number of votes and you could say, okay, that's, if it doesn't change dramatically, it's going to come awfully close to that.

that was going to be a big issue and you could count the number of votes and you could say, okay, that's, if it doesn't change dramatically, it's going to come awfully close to that.

I just don't see the interest at least beyond one or two justices in, in, in sort of going back on those issues, especially I think an issue we need to think about, you know, they're going to have their hands full with, all the Trump issues that are going to be coming their way. They're going to be major, major cases about major questions of constitutional structure.