Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

Can a U.S. president buy — or even invade — Greenland? Can he tear up treaties, fire a member of the Federal Reserve, and still stay within the Constitution? And who actually decides what “fairness” means in women’s sports?In this wide-ranging Law Talk episode, Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke debate Trump’s Greenland gambit, the limits of presidential war powers, treaty termination, NATO, transgender athletes and Title IX, Hawaii’s attempt to criminalize gun carry on private property, and whether the Supreme Court is about to blink when it comes to the independence of the Federal Reserve.Then, what starts out as a theoretical discussion quickly turns into a no-holds-barred debate about the unitary executive, impeachment, property rights, constitutional “prescription,” and whether modern government is compatible with the Constitution as written. Buckle up.

Is the United States already at war with Venezuela—and if so, who authorized it? The Law Talk crew reconvenes for a wide-ranging debate over presidential war powers, congressional passivity, and how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional text. The conversation then pivots to Netflix's attempt to buy Warner Bros antitrust and whether or not in these big mergers consumer welfare still matters at all. The episode closes with a sharp examination of the most feverish legal question of the moment: could a president really serve a third term—or is that pure constitutional fantasy?

The long-awaited originalism debate is here! Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo argue the meaning and limits of originalism, how constitutional text should be interpreted, whether long-standing practices can override original meaning, and where modern doctrines—from Article I courts to immigration policy—fit within the founding framework. It's a spirited, clear, and tightly argued conversation about how the Constitution should function today.

The Supreme Court’s new term is loaded with big questions and Law Talk is on the cases: transgender athletes and Title IX, presidential power to fire officials (even at the Fed), race-based redistricting, free speech and “conversion therapy,” and Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. From constitutional originalism to modern political realities, the trio debate what’s at stake for the Court — and for the country.

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.