Oral Argument in Herring v. United States:
The transcript is here. It was very engaging argument with two excellent advocates, Pam Karlan for Herring and Michael Dreeben for the United States, and the Justices were in top form. Karlan did her best in her opening argument, but Roberts, Alito, and Scalia were relentless. Mid-way through Dreeben's argument, it was looking like the case was over: The Justices were debating the best way to write the opinion to affirm. (When AMK starts asking what specific words the Court should or shouldn't use, it's usually a sign.) Pam had 8 minutes left for her rebuttal, but it was hard to get any traction by that point. Anyway, no major surprises on the merits: I thought the Justices focused on exactly the right issues. As I had suggested before, I think once the Justices really delve into the issues, it becomes a pretty clear win for the government.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Assuming Violations of the Fourth Amendment and Then Deciding the Scope of the Exclusionary Rule:
- Responding to Tom Goldstein on Herring:
- Supreme Court Hands Down Herring v. United States:
- Oral Argument in Herring v. United States:
- ACS Supreme Court Preview:
- Herring v. United States, and "Who Are The Police"?