Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and host Charles C.W. Cook dive into Trump’s decision to blow up a Venezuelan drug boat (was it legal? was it war?), the Supreme Court’s green light for immigration profiling in Los Angeles, and the growing showdown between lower courts and SCOTUS. They finish with Trump trying to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook and ponder whether or not the president can take control of the Federal Reserve.

Charles C.W. Cooke moderates a spirited debate between John Yoo and Richard Epstein on the constitutional meaning and historical origins of birthright citizenship. Drawing on legal precedent, originalist interpretation, and Reconstruction-era history, the two scholars explore whether Wong Kim Ark was rightly decided, how “subject to the jurisdiction” should be understood, and what the policy implications are for modern immigration.

Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke unpack one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in recent memory. From nationwide injunctions and the scope of presidential power, to parental rights, transgender medicine, and age verification laws, the trio dives deep into the constitutional, structural, and political implications of the Court’s major decisions and what it all means for American governance.

What do Charles Barkley, the National Guard, and the Posse Comitatus Act have in common? In this episode, of Law Talk with Epstein & Yoo, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo, joined by Charles C.W. Cooke, dive into the legal chaos surrounding the use of federal troops during civil unrest, whether Gavin Newsom could be overruled by the president, and what exactly the Constitution says about militias, insurrections, and executive power. They also weigh in on birthright citizenship, Supreme Court politics, and a game of HORSE on the Supreme Court basketball court (yes, it has one).

Law Talk returns and in this excursion,  Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo tackle a grab bag of constitutional issues with their usual mix of legal scholarship and exasperation (typically with each other). First up: the state of Maine, apparently auditioning for a role in a dystopian novel, bans a legislator from speaking because her views on gender in sports offend the ruling party. Epstein and Yoo are, unsurprisingly, not impressed. Then it’s on to Trump’s latest target—Harvard—where he wants to yank their tax-exempt status for what he sees as race-based admissions sins. Yoo says, “Hey, Bob Jones University got smacked for less,” while Epstein warns that burning down universities to own the libs might be a bit much. Things get even spicier with the arrest of a Wisconsin judge who allegedly helped an illegal immigrant sneak out the back door—Yoo and Epstein agree it’s legally justified, but question whether perp-walking a judge was really necessary. Finally, the gang ponders whether chatbots have First Amendment rights, with the consensus being: no, and let’s hope the robots don’t hear us say that.

Welcome to the new and improved Law Talk podcast, featuring host Charles C.W. Cooke! He joins legal heavyweights Richard Epstein and John Yoo for yet another spirited discussion of the latest legal controversies. They begin with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, debating the constitutional limits of executive power and the justiciability of national emergencies. They then tackle Trump’s lawsuits against law firms and the implications for the right to counsel and legal free speech. Later, they explore the administration’s aggressive tariff strategy under IEPA, and the deportation of an anti-Israel protester, Mahmoud Khalil, and the proposed federal oversight of Columbia University through a consent decree.

In this special edition of Law Talk with Epstein & Yoo, Richard Epstein and John Yoo are joined by National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke to discuss the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, as well as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, aka the Chevron case established in 1984.

Richard Epstein and John Yoo discuss the last two weeks of Supreme Court rulings covering challenges to Second, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments. They also preview the upcoming challenge to Chevron Deference and dive into disputes among the originalist thinkers on the court. Finally, they weigh in on criticisms of recent disclosures by Justice Thomas and future plans for a future Trump Administration from groups like Project 2025.

Richard and John respond to the clearing of student protests at major universities and judge their claims to the validity of their encampments. They also discuss the likelihood that the International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and whether President Biden will continue the pressure that his predecessor did on the court. Finally, they make predictions about the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on Trump’s insistence that presidents have absolute immunity – during and after their terms.

Richard and John get into it over Trump’s many trials, the likelihood that he’ll receive a fair one in New York City, and the windfall he appears to have received as Truth Social’s holding company goes public. They discuss the likelihood that John Eastman loses his license to practice law and they make predictions about the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in Trump’s cases involving Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. Finally, they preview a climate change case that could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

The faculty lounge is invaded by a guest host who pits Richard and John against one another, starting with their differences in opinion over when the government should regulate social media companies. While they predict the same Supreme Court ruling, they disagree on what constitutes government involvement in key dominated industries. Next Richard and John point to the natural consequence of Dobbs on the nation’s abortion laws, as they handle the recent Alabama IVF ruling that has the left-wing preparing fundraising and election materials for November. Finally, they turn to Mr. Trump’s legal woes, first with the Supreme Court’s possible ruling on his immunity for the January 6th case and ending with some agreement on the civil fraud penalty handed down in the Empire State.

It’s a lively session in the faculty lounge, as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are both coming to us from California and … let’s just say that Richard seems to be enjoying life in the sun. First up, a guided tour through Donald Trump’s legal travails: the questions about whether he’ll be allowed on the ballot, the controversy over presidential immunity, and the debate over whether a second Trump Administration will pose a unique threat to the rule of law. Then we delve into a controversy over executive power regarding Joe Biden: is the president overstepping the limits of his office with attacks on the Houthis in Yemen? Some senators think so. Finally, we stop off at the Supreme Court to examine the case that might upend the administrative state — and we also examine why former Supreme Court clerks are getting half-million dollar signing bonuses. All that, plus wisdom from Richard’s Uncle Albert, an In-N-Out update from John (would it be the California episode without it?), and a (mean-spirited and factually inaccurate) discussion of why Senik didn’t go to law school.

The faculty lounge reopens for a holiday session and we start on a somber note as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo react to the breaking news of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s death. Then, we get their analysis on the latest in the Israel-Hamas war, consider whether the courts have gone too far in imposing gag orders on former President Trump, and take a look at a Supreme Court case on gun rights … that just might result in a unanimous decision. All that, plus the analysis you really care about: the professors weigh in on the least valuable dish on the Thanksgiving table.

It’s a jam-packed session in the faculty lounge as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo go around the horn for a comprehensive look at the issues of the day: What does “international law” mean in the context of the war in Gaza? Should student activists be punished for their support of Hamas? Will the Supreme Court rule on whether Donald Trump can be on the 2024 ballot? What upcoming SCOTUS case inspired the first (non-podcast) Epstein and Yoo collaboration? And should the Supreme Court knuckle under to pressure to adopt a code of ethics? All that, plus we debate the finer points of ancient latin and do a quick tour of archaic American currency.

It’s an interactive session in the faculty lounge, as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo submit to the annual tradition of answering listener questions. There’s some serious legal analysis — can Donald Trump become president from behind bars? Can the 14th Amendment keep him off the ballot? What powers does Congress have to regulate abortion in the aftermath of the Dobbs case? But then we go to the deep cuts: Who are the greatest writers in the history of the Supreme Court? What’s it really like behind closed doors in Washington? Will the populist swing in the Republican Party reshape the Supreme Court? And then, of course, someone had to ask Richard about Roman Law. Be careful what you wish for.

Is Donald Trump toast? Are the walls closing in on Hunter Biden? Those are questions that can’t adequately be answered by two minutes of cable news. Luckily, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are here with one of the all-time deep-dive Law Talk episodes: a thorough look at the cases facing Donald Trump in Georgia, Florida, D.C., and Manhattan as well as the increasingly inscrutable case of Hunter Biden. Which case is most likely to take Trump down? What kinds of questions are raised by the DOJ’s bobbling of the Biden charges? And who’s going to be left standing when the dust clears? All that and more  — plus a chance to submit your questions for the professors — on this episode.

The Supreme Court ended its most recent term with a bang, and that’s also how Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are starting this review of the biggest decisions. There’s a split in the faculty lounge over the wisdom of the Court’s affirmative action ruling and we’ll let you decide who gets the better of the argument. Then we move on to the Court’s smackdown of the Biden Administration’s student loan relief plan and the latest in a long string of cases regarding how and whether free speech rights apply in an anti-discrimination context (yes, it’s Colorado … again). Finally, because we don’t want you to think Law Talk has lost its edge we tee up the most important legal question of 2023: Can a bear violate your Fourth Amendment rights?

It’s graduation season in the faculty lounge, but Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are still hard at work. In this month’s installment: What does the Durham report say about the future of the FBI? Should Daniel Penny stand trial for the headlock that ended Jordan Neely’s life? What explains the bizarre alliances behind the Supreme Court’s decision to let California control how the nation’s pigs are raised? And can Baltimore really sue automakers for making cars too easy to steal? Plus Epstein visits South America, Yoo ruins a graduation ceremony, and Senik gracelessly declines into middle age.

We’re breaking out birthday candles as one of the professors celebrates a milestone birthday. Once the festivities (which somehow devolve into a conversation about medical innovation) conclude, Professors Epstein and Yoo are on to the topics at hand: Was Fox News right to settle with Dominion? Does America need tougher defamation laws? Is Clarence Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow a troubling indiscretion on behalf of a Supreme Court justice or a case of activist journalism run amok? What will happen with the controversial rulings about abortion drugs? And did Disney outsmart Ron DeSantis — and why does the answer to that question involve King Charles? All that and more in a jam-packed hour in the faculty lounge.

The indictment of Donald J. Trump was unsealed to an almost universally negative reaction—even those who want to see him behind bars. How likely is the case to be dropped before going to trial? What jurisdiction does the DA claim to have? To what standard should an indictment of a former president be held? And has Donald Trump forfeited his right to argue the justice system has been politicized?