A Los Angeles jury has handed down a verdict stating that Meta and Google are held liable for a young woman’s psychological harm allegedly linked to social media use—along with a $6 million damages award. But what legal theory could possibly justify it? Richard Epstein dissects the case, from the limits of Section 230 to the growing push to impose liability on platforms for user behavior. Epstein explains why the ruling rests on shaky ground, how it collides with longstanding principles of tort law, and why—if upheld—it could expose tech companies to catastrophic, system-wide liability. The conversation ranges from contributory liability and First Amendment concerns to the deeper question: who is responsible when harm flows through a network? A sharp, fast-moving analysis of a case that could reshape the legal architecture of the internet.

Richard Epstein takes aim at NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push for rent control and higher inheritance taxes, arguing that both policies punish landlords, shrink housing supply, and ultimately drive wealth—and people—out of the state. From empty apartments and collapsing incentives to interstate tax competition and capital flight, Epstein lays out a stark warning: policies that sound compassionate in the short run can devastate cities over time. A sharp, unsparing look at markets, incentives, and the high cost of getting them wrong.

Richard Epstein defends the U.S. strike on Iran as a necessary act of preemptive self-defense, arguing that waiting for an “imminent” attack would have been reckless in the face of a hostile regime pursuing nuclear capability. He also dives into the War Powers Act, executive authority, regime change, and what “victory” would actually mean—while weighing the risks of escalation against the dangers of hesitation. Is this decisive statecraft or constitutional overreach? Epstein makes the Libertarian hawk case.

Richard Epstein unpacks what the equal time rule actually is, where it came from, and why it still applies to broadcast television decades after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. He also explores the original justification for FCC regulation based on spectrum scarcity, the uneasy relationship between free speech and campaign finance law, and whether the logic behind these rules makes any sense in a world of YouTube, podcasts, and limitless media platforms

Can social media companies be held legally responsible for the harms caused by their users? Richard Epstein examines the surge of lawsuits targeting social media platforms, particularly claims tied to speech, adolescent harm, and platform design. Epstein explains why traditional tort law places responsibility on the individual wrongdoer rather than intermediaries, how Section 230 is meant to shield platforms from derivative liability, and why efforts to carve out “bad faith” or promotion-based exceptions risk collapsing those protections altogether. He also explores the high costs and perverse incentives of jury-driven liability, the limits of causation in complex social harms, and a deeper concern often overlooked: government pressure on platforms that threatens free speech more than platform misconduct itself.

President Trump’s recent embrace of economic proposals run sharply against free-market orthodoxy, exploring three headline-grabbing ideas: capping credit-card interest rates, banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes, and restricting dividends and stock buybacks by defense contractors. Why is a Republican president is advancing policies more commonly associated with progressive populism? Drawing on economic history, constitutional law, and real-world market behavior, Epstein argues that price controls, capital restrictions, and politicized contracting consistently backfire, harming consumers, workers, and innovation alike. The conversation situates Trump’s proposals within a broader populist strategy, assesses the political incentives behind them, and warns that ignoring basic economic lessons risks repeating some of the most durable policy failures of the past.

Who actually decides when the United States goes to war—Congress or the president? Richard Epstein traces the Constitution’s original division of war powers from 1789 to the present and explain how practice, politics, and modern warfare have steadily shifted authority toward the presidency. Along the way, they explore declarations of war that never happen, authorizations that never expire, emergency actions that become routine, and why Congress so often prefers not to decide at all. Professor Epstein argues that America now operates under two constitutions—the one we wrote and the one we live with.

Richard Epstein does a deep into the Supreme Court’s latest showdown: Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could redefine presidential removal power and the future of independent agencies like the FTC. Epstein walks through the constitutional history — from the Founding to Humphrey’s Executor to modern administrative courts — and explains how the Court’s interpretation of Article II has evolved, splintered, and in some cases contradicted itself. The conversation covers everything from the steel-seizure precedent to the Federal Reserve, the structure of the administrative state, and the unresolved tension between originalism and the practical realities of modern governance. Epstein explains why this case could be one of the most consequential constitutional questions of our time.

Richard Epstein examines the constitutional, statutory, and international-law implications of the Trump administration’s recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean alleged to be transporting “narco-terrorists.” Epstein outlines the traditional separation of war powers, emphasizing the limits on unilateral executive action and the enduring constraints imposed by international norms governing the use of force, self-defense, and the treatment of noncombatants. Their discussion highlights key precedents in maritime and public international law, the challenges of applying long-standing legal doctrines to modern security threats, and the potential domestic and geopolitical consequences of executive overreach.

Gerrymandering is back in the headlines — and this time, the political map wars in Texas and California are colliding with the courts, the Constitution, and the future of American democracy. Richard Epstein explains the history of gerrymandering, how modern technology turbocharges it, and why recent Supreme Court rulings have made the problem even harder to fix. From Texas judges tossing out new maps, to California’s counter-move, to the racial redistricting battles now reaching the Supreme Court — this conversation dives into the legal chaos, the political incentives, and the structural weaknesses that keep the cycle going.