Professor Orin S. Kerr has had a particularly busy past few months affecting law through his scholarship.  Recently, his Wall Street Journal editorial addressing a problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act helped create an amendment to that law just a day later.  And this past spring, Professor Kerr's previous articles on Fourth Amendment issues found him advocating at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Davis v. United States.

Professor Kerr's Scholarship Influences Congressional Legislation

On September 14, 2011, Professor Kerr published the op-ed, "Should Faking a Name on Facebook Be a Felony? Congress Contemplates Draconian Punishment for Internet Lies," in The Wall Street Journal.  Within two days, Forbes was reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee had passed an amendment "so that people who violate website’s terms of service are not considered felons" -- in large part due to Professor Kerr's editorial.

"This is an amazing testament to how our faculty help to impact law and policy," said Dean Paul Schiff Berman at his blog,
20th & H.  Join the conversations at: Orin Kerr’s OP Ed in WSJ proves Persuasive and Kerr’s Work Resonates Abroad Through GW’s Vast Alumni Network.

Professor Kerr Argues Fourth Amendment Case Before U.S. Supreme Court  

"One of the best parts of the oral argument experience was when I first arrived and walked up the Supreme Court steps: I immediately saw a group of my former students at the very front of the  line. It was a real thrill for me."           - Professor Orin Kerr

In April, Professor Kerr returned to the U.S. Supreme Court where he once clerked to argue a police search and seizure case.

His path to arguing the case of Davis v. United States before the Supreme Court actually began with a case called United States v. McCane that the high court declined to hear.

Professor Kerr had written the brief trying to get cert for the McCane case. After it was denied cert, an article grew out of the case, "Good Faith, New Law, and the Scope of the Exclusionary Rule," (Georgetown Law Journal), in which he articulated why he thought defendants should win if and when the Supreme Court agreed to review the issue. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed to hear the issue in Davis and Professor Kerr agreed to write the briefs and handle the oral argument.

"I've written the briefs in a few other Fourth Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, and I was hoping I would get an argument eventually," said Professor Kerr. "I lucked out when the Supreme Court agreed to review the Davis case, as I had already written a forthcoming article explaining why I thought he should win. I felt very fortunate to combine my scholarship and advocacy in the Davis case. It's both a very technical case, and also a very important one. It's a Fourth Amendment nerd's dream."

Professor Kerr's moot in the Jacob Burns Moot Court Room in March.

In March, before the official oral argument, Professor Kerr opened up his moot to the entire Law School student body.  Presiding over the trial run were Professors Renée Lettow Lerner,  Alan Morrison, and Paul Butler.

"Orin's moot court was a demonstration of the best of everything about GW Law," said Professor Paul Butler. "Where else can students help moot a brilliant professor, and then two weeks later, take the metro to watch him make the argument before the Supreme Court? What we did that day was fun, educational, and it will help shape criminal procedure jurisprudence."

Davis was decided in June, and unfortunately for the case, it was decided 7-2 in favor of the government (Justices Breyer and Ginsburg dissented).  Professor Kerr wrote a law review article about the implications of Davis and where the law might go from here: "Fourth Amendment Remedies and Development of the Law: A Comment on Camreta v. Greene and Davis v. United States" (forthcoming in the Cato Supreme Court Review).