Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yeah. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

Unless there is any more question to be able to find an argument in this case.

All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention.

Welcome to Divided Argument, an unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast.

I'm Dan Epps.

And I'm well-bowed.

So, Dan, it hasn't been quite as long as it has since our last episode, but I can't say

we're going on a really fast clip here.

No.

That's your excuse.

I don't think, and I'm not sure we're going to anytime soon.

What's my excuse? I got so many excuses. I'm teaching and still have this baby. Baby's still a

baby. Still doing baby stuff. And then Daniel and I have another important collaboration, second big

collaboration, 22 other than the baby, which is we wrote an article

that we were just finishing desperately. And it combines some of our favorite things. On her

side, it combines interest in common law, private law, property doctrine. And my side, it's two of my

favorite things. The Fourth Amendment and saying that you will are wrong. Really? Yeah, I'm not sure

which of those I like more. What am I wrong about now? Well, I mean, many things, but in this particular

instance, so for listeners who are not deep into theory of the Fourth Amendment, Will and a friend

of the show, James Stern, who clerked for the same judges and judge and justice I did after right after me. Good friend. You wrote this article. Gosh, what is it four years ago now? Six maybe, six, I think. Okay. Wait, going back, the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, where, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but your claim is the kind of

task for whether government conduct implicates the Fourth Amendment should be dictated by

whether the police have done something that would not be permitted by a private person under

...