Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

What does a Democratic midterm wave mean for the Supreme Court? Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo debate judicial nominations, possible retirements, and the prospect of court packing before turning to a property rights dispute over compensation for pipeline construction. Then, as completely expected, John Yoo mounts a passionate defense of the McRib against a false advertising lawsuit. Finally, Trump’s proposed triumphal arch sparks a debate over judicial power, presidential motives, and who gets to shape Washington’s skyline.

Can the federal government ban you from making whiskey in your own home? Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke  tackle the constitutional limits of federal power, a double–Dan Sullivan ballot controversy in Alaska, and the blurry line between prediction markets and gambling. Then it’s on to a Supreme Court sidelined by recusals—and whether the justices need a bench of substitutes.

Can the city of Boulder set climate policy for the world? Can Colorado make Catholic preschools choose between their faith and public funding? And can a six-pack of beer cost you an airplane? Richard Epstein and John Yoo join Charles C. W. Cooke to preview the Supreme Court’s coming term, tackling climate lawsuits, religious liberty, AR-15 bans, and the Eighth Amendment—with plenty of constitutional sparring and a surprising amount of agreement.

Can the government track your car, can the president show reporters the door, and can you blame a chatbot for someone’s crimes? Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo tackle Flock surveillance cameras and the Fourth Amendment, the fight over White House press access, and the limits of AI liability—before taking on Meta’s social media settlement and asking when settling a lawsuit became a license to write everyone else’s rules.

Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein debate whether Meta can really be held responsible for the harms of social media, whether Texas can put the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms, and whether the enormous defamation judgments against Donald Trump can survive Supreme Court scrutiny. They conduct a intense debate over Trump’s White House ballroom, including questions of standing, congressional authority, private funding, and just how far a president can go in remaking the executive mansion. Across all four disputes, the conversation keeps returning to the same fault lines: runaway damages, judicial power, constitutional limits, and whether courts are applying the law—or inventing it.

This week, the Law Talk crew tackles Trump’s White House ballroom fight, the latest battle over birthright citizenship, Anthony Fauci’s decision to plead the Fifth, and the controversial pardons issued by Joe Biden. They debate the limits of executive power, the authority of the courts and Congress, and whether America’s expansive presidential pardon power has finally gone too far.

Can a U.S. mayor enforce an International Criminal Court warrant? Has President Trump found a new legal path to tariffs after earlier setbacks? And can the government really seize a $95,000 airplane over a six-pack of beer? Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C. W. Cooke unpack these legal controversies before closing with a spirited debate over which Supreme Court justices deserve a place on the judicial Mount Rushmore.

Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein break down three major Supreme Court decisions from the end of the term: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case that left the status quo intact while sparking a debate over originalism, birth tourism, and Wong Kim Ark; West Virginia v. BPJ, the transgender-athletes case addressing Title IX, equal protection, women’s sports, and federalism; and National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the campaign-finance ruling that further limits restrictions on coordinated party spending and raises big questions about money, speech, corruption, and the future strength of political parties.

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court’s treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey’s Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement’s use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

The Supreme Court drops a bombshell voting-rights ruling, Richard Epstein declares the republic is heading for the rocks, John Yoo says everybody needs to calm down because politicians have always behaved terribly, and Charlie Cooke tries to referee the whole thing before the podcast devolves into anarchy. Along the way: racial gerrymandering, constitutional originalism, the mysterious “Republican Form of Government Clause,” whether Trump can legally settle a lawsuit with… himself, and why both parties suddenly love slush funds when they’re the ones holding the hose. It’s a cheerful little conversation about whether America’s political system is fundamentally broken — and whose fault it is.