Orin Kerr
banner
orinkerr.bsky.social
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

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

Political science 35%
Law 28%

How to do this on an iphone. bsky.app/profile/ters...
Figured it out without reading a NYT article.
1. Settings
2. Aceessibility
3. Display and Text Size
4. Color Filters to ON
5. Select grayscale and adjust Intensity if you want some color.

While you are in #4 turn on Reduce Transparency.

Reposted by Orin S. Kerr

Figured it out without reading a NYT article.
1. Settings
2. Aceessibility
3. Display and Text Size
4. Color Filters to ON
5. Select grayscale and adjust Intensity if you want some color.

While you are in #4 turn on Reduce Transparency.

The basic idea, as I take it, is that the tendency to spend lots of time on phones is partially the result of the incredibly vibrant colors on modern smart phones. Mute the colors—or in Julia's case, go completely black and white— and you feel less inclination to spend time on your phone.

Reposted by Mark D. White

I tried a version of this—muting the color down about 75%, rather than going entirely black & white— and Julia Angwin is on to something.
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/25/o...
Opinion | I Killed Color on My Phone. The Result Shocked Me.
www.nytimes.com

National Pork Producers v. Ross came at just the wrong time for you, I suspect.

Thanks!!

I did talk about AI a bit, pages 185-86, in part to say why I wasn't talking about it more; beyond that one context where I discuss it, I'm not sure it's going to have much effect. (It will revolutionize many many things, but I'm not sure 4th Amendment law will be one of them.)

Reminder that AI has a long way to go and often generates obvious errors.

It doesn't really exist. There's a regulation limiting border searches by border officials to areas within 100 miles of the border, and people who don't know what they're talking about treated that as a rule that there's no privacy within 100 miles of the border.

Both standard and good advice.

In the New Year, may your search for fulfillment lead to many fruits, may you seize its effects, and may motions to suppress your warranted happiness be denied.

Here's to a 2026 filled with good faith and inevitable discoveries.

Happy Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary for all who celebrate! 🎉🎉🎉
www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/y...
www.supremecourt.gov

If formal equality of rights is the main goal, everyone having zero rights achieves that perfectly. But I don't think that fits the evaluation of government interests that the law requires, which is why I think that distinction might be justified. See the chapter for more details.... /4

If I'm reading you correctly, you're assuming that citizens have rights, and you want non-citizens to have the same rights. But if the law is to equate citizen and non-citizen rights, it seems more likely to me that it would equate them the way it does now: No one has any rights. /3

I think we're operating from different defaults, too. The status quo is that no one has any rights. I am arguing for why citizens should get some rights, and why they have a better argument than non-citizens. /2

The argument for the law might recognize a different interest in searching non-citizen's devices is not "national security," though. It's that the non-citizen is asking to enter, and the government has to determine if the non-citizen should be allowed to enter—and info on a device is relevant.

I am suggesting that there should be no power to search the phones of U.S. Citizens crossing the border without a warrant.

Yes. See Chapter 7.

In Chapter 7 of my book, "The Digital Fourth Amendment," I argue that the border search exception should not apply to the electronic devices of U.S. citizens crossing the border. That would be another way to protect your privacy, just sayin'.
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/t...

For the Bluebook nerds: No, they didn't have small caps for "Const," and yes, I ordered it with a lower-case "a" for "amend" but they changed it to upper-case. Editors!

Happy 2026, everyone.
High fashion for 2026.

The album doesn't come out until next month, but I love the first track released from Craig Taborn's latest @ECMRecords release, "When Kabuya Dances," with Tomeka Reid and Ches Smith. (Not exactly music to roller skate by, but not too abstract, either.)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aS-...
When Kabuya Dances
YouTube video by Craig Taborn - Topic
www.youtube.com

High fashion for 2026.

If you're a professor using my Computer Crime Law casebook, just a reminder that there's a new 6th Edition, just published this month.

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler

Some people think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test in Fourth Amendment law is just made up, and that it's inconsistent with the constitutional text and original public meaning.

They're wrong.

I explain why in this 2022 article, "Katz as Originalism":
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Not very Intradisciplinary.

No. It's about "intradisciplinary," poking fun at the more familiar "interdisciplinary."

Number of readers who got the joke: Small, it seems.

The cert-stage briefing in Chatrie, the geofence warrant case, is complete, and the case is scheduled for the 1/9 conference. Seems like a long shot given the lack of a majority opinion on the merits below, but who knows.
supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?...
Search
supremecourt.gov

I've been making this joke for about 20 years, just seemed time.