Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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?