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.