Explore every episode of the podcast Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

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.

Is Donald Trump toast? Are the walls closing in on Hunter Biden? Those are questions that can’t adequately be answered by two minutes of cable news. Luckily, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are here with one of the all-time deep-dive Law Talk episodes: a thorough look at the cases facing Donald Trump in Georgia, Florida, D.C., and Manhattan as well as the increasingly inscrutable case of Hunter Biden. Which case is most likely to take Trump down? What kinds of questions are raised by the DOJ’s bobbling of the Biden charges? And who’s going to be left standing when the dust clears? All that and more  — plus a chance to submit your questions for the professors — on this episode.

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?

It’s graduation season in the faculty lounge, but Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are still hard at work. In this month’s installment: What does the Durham report say about the future of the FBI? Should Daniel Penny stand trial for the headlock that ended Jordan Neely’s life? What explains the bizarre alliances behind the Supreme Court’s decision to let California control how the nation’s pigs are raised? And can Baltimore really sue automakers for making cars too easy to steal? Plus Epstein visits South America, Yoo ruins a graduation ceremony, and Senik gracelessly declines into middle age.

We’re breaking out birthday candles as one of the professors celebrates a milestone birthday. Once the festivities (which somehow devolve into a conversation about medical innovation) conclude, Professors Epstein and Yoo are on to the topics at hand: Was Fox News right to settle with Dominion? Does America need tougher defamation laws? Is Clarence Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow a troubling indiscretion on behalf of a Supreme Court justice or a case of activist journalism run amok? What will happen with the controversial rulings about abortion drugs? And did Disney outsmart Ron DeSantis — and why does the answer to that question involve King Charles? All that and more in a jam-packed hour in the faculty lounge.

The indictment of Donald J. Trump was unsealed to an almost universally negative reaction—even those who want to see him behind bars. How likely is the case to be dropped before going to trial? What jurisdiction does the DA claim to have? To what standard should an indictment of a former president be held? And has Donald Trump forfeited his right to argue the justice system has been politicized?

We may be nearing spring break, but Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are still focused on the campus. First, there’s the matter of President Biden’s student loan plan: will a Supreme Court challenge to the policy falter on standing grounds? And is the Court’s newfound skepticism towards executive power as cynical as the media suggests? Then, there’s the issue of reforming higher ed. What’s to be done with disruptive students like the ones who shut down a recent Federalist Society event at Stanford? And is it time to rethink tenure for professors? Several states think so. All that, plus the professors dive into the controversy over Silicon Valley Bank and weigh in (some with more enthusiasm than others) on America’s finest regional cuisine.

The faculty lounge reopens for a special Presidents’ Day session in which Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo kick things off by revealing their picks for the most under- and overrated presidents. Then we’re on to current controversies: will a talkative juror foul the case against Donald Trump in Georgia? Why is Mike Pence employing a novel legal argument to avoid a subpoena in the DOJ’s investigation of the former president? And will Ron DeSantis’ attempt to overhaul American defamation law get its day in the Supreme Court? All that plus the biggest question bedeviling America: what on earth is Professor Yoo wearing?

The faculty lounge has reopened for 2023 and Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are ringing in the new year in style. On the docket: What’s the potential fallout from President Biden’s mishandling of classified information? And how does it compare to former President Trump’s? What happens if the Supreme Court never gets to the bottom of the leak of the Dobbs opinion? Is there a sudden epidemic of incivility on the Court? And — the analysis you’re all really here for — will Alec Baldwin be convicted for his role in an accidental shooting on a New Mexico film set? All that plus Yoo reviews movies, Epstein takes a left turn into the JFK assassination, and we review some of the sickest burns in Supreme Court history.

The faculty lounge … is on the move. In this special installment of the Law Talk podcast, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo hold court before a live audience at the Federalist Society’s annual meeting in Washington D.C. On the docket: upcoming Supreme Court controversies. Does affirmative action hang in the balance? Does a case out of North Carolina have the potential to upend American democracy? Then, we open the floor for questions — and things get lively!

The fall semester is under way in the faculty lounge as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo take us through the latest legal controversies. On the syllabus: The many twists and turns of the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump — Was the raid justified? Can the president declassify documents at will? And what’s a special master anyway? Then, we turn to the Biden Administration’s plan to forgive college debt. Does the president really have the authority to make such sweeping policy unilaterally? And, if not, does anyone actually have standing to challenge the move in court? Finally, a look at some of the legal complexities of a post-Roe world. Can the White House force states to allow certain abortions that are otherwise prohibited under state law? A lawsuit in Idaho and a new policy from the VA will put that question to the test. 

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.

In a special episode of Law Talk, professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo do a deep dive into Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade — and take listener questions while they’re at it. They analyze the logic of Justice Alito’s decision, the controversial concurrence of Clarence Thomas, the uncomfortable middle ground occupied by Chief Justice Roberts, and the blistering dissent from the Court’s liberal justices. Plus, what’s next: can Congress write Roe back into law — or, conversely, impose nationwide abortion restrictions? Can states limit the ability of citizens to cross state lines in pursuit of an abortion? All that, plus a brief look at the Court’s noteworthy gun rights case out of New York and the professors’ answer to the question: what’s this year’s most important Supreme Court case that no one is talking about?

Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo come together for an emergency session in the faculty lounge, wherein they break down the consequences of the leaked Supreme Court abortion decision, the strengths and weaknesses of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion, and what the decision could mean for the future of the Court and the country.

The faculty lounge has been closed for repairs, and after a long absence the men of Law Talk are back with a super-sized episode. On the agenda: the rise of KBJ and the legacy of Justice Breyer; the fallout from the end of the mask mandate; the January 6 Commission’s new effort to hem in executive power; Florida tries to undo Disney World’s legal privileges; Justice Gorsuch sounds a controversial note over the treatment of American territories; and should the government give legal personhood to … bodies of water? All that plus Yoo becomes a rock star, Epstein fends off troublesome tuba players, and Senik’s got an innovative new proposal about American statehood.

The faculty lounge moves west, as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo both check in from sunny California (while resident cat-herder Troy Senik stays behind in frigid New York). On this installment: Did the Supreme Court’s parsing of the vaccine mandate pass muster? Have we figured out Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett yet? Can Donald Trump be held civilly liable for the January 6 riots? Did the Supreme Court sell the former president’s claims of executive privilege short? Is reforming the Electoral Count Act the most essential element of election reform? Is higher education a cartel (there’s a split in the faculty lounge)? And why did a Georgia sheriff trying to keep trick-or-treaters safe fall afoul of the First Amendment? 

It’s a festive year-end session in the faculty lounge, as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo dissect the latest drama before the Supreme Court. Is Roe v. Wade headed for annihilation? Is California’s attempt to use the logic of the Texas abortion law to go after guns the beginning of 50-state chaos? And speaking of firearms, is SCOTUS about to upend restrictive gun control laws in blue states?   Then we leave the court behind for other legal controversies: why are lawsuits against opioid manufacturers failing around the country? Is the Biden Administration obligated to compensate immigrant families who were separated at the border? And, most important of all: exactly how many laws is Santa breaking every year? All that, plus Richard breaks down the economics of marriage, John reveals that he wants a Christmas gift from Vladimir Putin, and we get an after-action report on the professors’ joint trip to Italy.

The faculty lounge is open for visitors as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo tackle the latest legal controversies: will the Supreme Court open the door to challenges to the controversial Texas abortion law? Can Donald Trump use executive privilege to keep the January 6 commission away from his White House records? Will Steve Bannon’s defiance of the commission lead to federal prosecution? Is congressional Democrats’ idea of a wealth tax unconstitutional? Is a woke controversy at Yale Law School representative of a bigger problem in legal academia? And, for your listening pleasure, a Law Talk tutorial: how would a prosecutor think about Alec Baldwin’s accidental shooting of a crew member on a New Mexico movie set? All that plus tips on airline etiquette and NFT investing from your favorite professors.

Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are kicking off the fall semester with a bang, as they invite classroom participation in the form of questions from Law Talk listeners. On a wide-ranging episode, they cover the controversies over the Texas and Mississippi abortion laws, the crisis on the southern border, vaccine mandates, and a smattering of questions on everything from long-dead Supreme Court justices to the possibility of a new constitutional convention to revising the Declaration of Independence. You’ll hear all the wisdom and insight you’ve come to inspect from the professors plus a potentially career-ending gaffe from our intrepid moderator, who assures us he will submit to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

The faculty lounge has been closed for renovations, but Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are back to break down the biggest legal stories of the summer: What will come of the Biden Administration’s decision to defy the Supreme Court over the eviction moratorium? Who can (or can’t) mandate vaccines? Will a recent ruling from the Court buttress Republican states trying to change their voting laws? Is a Mississippi case the long-awaited culmination of the fight over Roe v. Wade? Why did antitrust efforts against Facebook get smacked down in federal courts? Is there any hope for Donald Trump’s class-action suit against the big tech companies? And finally, the professors reveal what they’d do if given the chance to amend the Constitution.

Summer school is in full-swing in the faculty lounge, where Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are breaking down the latest from the Supreme Court: Is college sports about to be turned on its head? Was the Court right to side with a foul-mouthed Pennsylvania cheerleader? Was the Court’s decision about Catholic adoption services in Philadelphia a Pyrrhic victory for religious liberty? Is a ruling about farmworkers in California the ultimate vindication of Richard Epstein? Plus, are states within their rights to clamp down on Critical Race Theory in schools — or are they running afoul of First Amendment protections? All that plus Epstein goes postal on Amazon, Yoo settles the great Philadelphia cheesesteak debate, and we get a handy tip as to how to determine when a piece of legislation is no good.

The men of Law Talk are getting Memorial Day weekend off to an early start with a spirited session in the faculty lounge. On the agenda: does a new Mississippi case mean Roe v. Wade is living on borrowed time? Does international law provide a remedy for a journalist’s imprisonment in Belarus? Or a potential lab leak in China? Will Florida get laughed out of court for attempting to regulate big tech on its own? And is the Supreme Court on the cusp of revolutionizing college sports? All that plus Professor Yoo has a gripe with President Biden that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, and Professor Epstein is … doing impressions of British economists? 

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.

There’s no spring break in the faculty lounge, as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo turn their attention to a bevy of cases before the Supreme Court. Will the justices strike down New York’s strict gun control laws? Can California force non-profits to disclose their donors? Will an angry high school cheerleader in Pennsylvania change the face of free speech jurisprudence? And has Justice Thomas signaled the beginning of a new era in tech regulation? All that plus a deep-dive on the push for D.C. statehood, a curious look at the history of polygamy laws, and Yoo out-libertarians Epstein.

Professors Epstein and Yoo both have new digs, but they’re still bringing the same searing legal analysis. On this episode: can Democrats really unseat a Republican House member? What’s the fight about voting rights really about? Can accepting COVID stimulus money prevent states from cutting taxes? Is it time to revisit Supreme Court precedent on slander (John’s old boss thinks so)? All that plus we get a tour of the professors’ bookshelves, learn a little about Wyoming history, and answer a letter from an aspiring young lawyer.

There’s a party in the faculty lounge, as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo — along with long-suffering host Troy Senik — celebrate the 10th anniversary of the podcast. A few special guests drop by, but we still have time for all the legal issues of the day: the aftermath of the Trump impeachment, a Texas’ judge’s smackdown of Joe Biden’s immigration policy, efforts to stifle conservative outlets on cable news and social media, and the Supreme Court’s controversial decision not to deal with an election challenge out of Pennsylvania. All that plus a member of the faculty lounge dressed like a Star Trek cast member, a look back on a decade of the show, and a crash course in presidential speeding tickets.

This is a special announcement from John and Richard inviting our Law Talk with Epstein & Yoo listeners to join us on February 8th, 2021 at 1PM PT/4PM ET on Zoom for a discussion on the Constitutionality of impeaching a former president. They’ll be joined by National Review’s Andy McCarthy and Peter Robinson will be moderating. Go to Ricochet.com/LawTalk for details on how to view the event.  See you there!

Pack a lunch because this is the longest session we’ve ever held in the faculty lounge. In the final Law Talk of the Trump Administration, we break down all the events of the last week: Congress’s attempt to stymie the tallying of the electoral vote, the role of the Vice President, whether President Trump should be removed from office, a seeming breakdown in the chain of command, and a reaction to the president’s attempt to pressure Georgia’s Secretary of State. Then it’s on to the incoming Biden Administration, as the professors react to Merrick Garland’s nomination to be Attorney General, the push for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., and the prospect of Justice Breyer’s retirement from the Supreme Court. Then we cap it all off with the professors’ final judgments on the Trump Administration. All that, plus breaking news from Twitter and McDonald’s and … less-than-breaking news from the annals of Roman Law.

The faculty lounge has reopened for its holiday party, but there’s still plenty of business to dispense with. On this final installment of 2020, Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are tackling a stocking full of issues: Does a suit from the Texas Attorney General stand any chance of being the Hail Mary that the Trump campaign needs? Can the courts rein in the Michael Flynn pardon? Who’s the least menacing candidate to be Joe Biden’s Attorney General? Does the Supreme Court’s smackdown of Andrew Cuomo represent a turning point on COVID restrictions? Will the justices save President Trump’s plan to exclude illegal immigrants from the census? Has the era of government by executive order gone too far? And finally, how, is it possible that Gavin Newsom can unilaterally end the automobile as we know it in California?

It’s a Thanksgiving feast of legal analysis in the faculty lounge (don’t worry, the profs issue opinions on the best side dishes for your holiday meal), as Richard Epstein & John Yoo convene for their first post-election session. On the menu: Do any of President Trump’s legal challenges to the outcome of the election have a chance in court? Are attempts to get state legislatures to change their electoral votes constitutional? Would a president Joe Biden actually have the power to issue a national mask mandate? Will increasingly restrictive COVID rules at the state level withstand scrutiny by the courts? Was Justice Alito out of line to issue politically-charged remarks at the Federalist Society convention? And finally, the question of the hour: does President Trump have the power to pardon himself?

It’s out of the frying pan and into the fire, as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo take us from the just-concluded drama of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings to the just-emerging drama over the Supreme Court’s role in the 2020 election. Along the way they consider how seriously we should take the court-packing threat; whether super-precedents are actually a thing; if Roe v. Wade and the ACA are actually in danger with a Justice Barrett on the court; and what the newest Supreme Court justice's judicial blindspot is most likely to be. Then it’s on to the Supreme Court’s unpredictable role in the 2020 presidential election. Will Chief Justice Roberts surprise us all again? Do any of the lessons of Bush v. Gore apply this year? And does ACB have a duty to recuse herself? Come for the top-shelf legal analysis, stay for Professor Epstein posing a grammar brainteaser for the ages.

An emergency meeting has been called in the faculty lounge as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo react to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sharing their personal remembrances of the late justice and reflecting on her judicial legacy. Then, an analysis of what’s to come: Should the Senate steam ahead with confirmation (there’s a divide in the faculty lounge)? Which of the prospective nominees should President Trump choose? What are the odds that the GOP will once again find itself undermined by a justice who ‘evolves’ on the court? And how credible are Democratic threats of court-packing? All that and more in our comprehensive coverage of the biggest legal story of the year.

In an August faculty lounge tradition, Professors Epstein & Yoo are taking listener questions — and it’s an eclectic bunch. Tune in as the professors debate everything from the limits of stare decisis to whether Barack Obama could be Vice President; from whether there should be more politicians on the Supreme Court to the legal problems with Dred Scott (yes, it involves Roman law); from the lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses to the radicalism in Seattle’s city government. All that plus the hosts survey the wreckage in their home cities, consider the virtues of not being a Supreme Court clerk, and spend some time on William Howard Taft arcana. As you do.

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.

There’s a full docket in the faculty lounge as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo tackle the Roger Stone case and review the Supreme Court term that was: How did John Roberts justify taking both sides of the abortion regulations case within just a few years? Why does the Court get so many religious liberty cases these days — and is Antonin Scalia to blame? Has the pursuit of President Trump’s tax records seen SCOTUS open up a pandora’s box? And did the Court just give a huge chunk of Oklahoma back to Native Americans? All that plus the profs head to the suburbs, and we answer the question "Is it time to start worrying about Justice Gorsuch?” Also, remember to submit your questions for the upcoming Law Talk Q&A in the comments or to troy@ricochet.com   

Summer school is starting early in the faculty lounge. On this episode, Professors Epstein and Yoo have a full agenda: Are Minnesota prosecutors setting themselves up for a fall in the Derek Chauvin case? Should the Supreme Court have taken a case that could have allowed it to pare back qualified immunity? What should we make of Justice Gorsuch’s surprising turn in the LGBT discrimination case? Or Chief Justice Roberts siding with the court’s liberals in subjecting California churches to strict COVID protocols? Does President Trump have the power to stop John Bolton’s book from being released? And, finally, can we find eternal truths about intellectual property law in the battle between a couple of authors of wolf-themed erotica? At least one professor thinks so!

While everyone else is holding their graduation ceremonies on Zoom, professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are still hard at work in the faculty lounge. On this installment: Is the end of the Michael Flynn case justice served or justice denied? Should sexual assault cases be tried on college campuses? Can the government stick the landing on the end of coronavirus lockdowns? Does the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Bridgegate convictions mean a free-for-all on government corruption? And is President Trump about to dodge a bullet on his tax returns? All that plus Epstein and a small child stare out a window, Yoo explores the black market in haircuts, and we finally get to the bottom of the Supreme Court’s mid-oral arguments toilet flush.

With Professors Epstein and Yoo deemed essential workers, the faculty lounge reopens for another round of COVID-19 analysis. On this episode: Can President Trump override state efforts to keep economies shuttered? Are there limits to the intrusive restrictions being enacted by the nation’s governors? Do churches (or abortion clinics) get special treatment during shutdowns? How can the Chinese government be held to account for the spread of coronavirus? What was the right response to the USS Roosevelt controversy? Was President Trump justified in removing a troublesome inspector general? And does a new report show it’s time to blow up the FISA proces? All that plus a Law Talk examination of Tom Brady’s new IP play, a sampling of avian life in John’s neighborhood, and we play “Which Prof is More Likely to Snap in Lockdown?

Fresh off of a scrubdown, the faculty lounge has reopened for a special all-coronavirus episode. On the agenda: Where do the emergency authorities of the White House — and the states — begin and end? Can authorities close down gun stores as an emergency measure? Should the feds drive production of emergency supplies? Did the Justice Department use the crisis for a power grab? And would digital surveillance to stop the spread of COVID-19 run afoul of the Fourth Amendment? Find out the answers to all that and more on the world’s longest micro-episode.

Every other faculty lounge in America may be closed, but Professors Epstein and Yoo are still showing up to work. On this episode: what are the legal ramifications of the coronavirus? Can Catholic charities be excluded from providing adoption services because of their refusal to place children with same-sex couples? Is there any hope for President Trump’s libel lawsuits against the New York Times and Washington Post? Is encouraging an illegal immigrant to stay in the country a crime? Is the Supreme Court about to make a game-changing decision on abortion? And is getting hit by a foul ball about to be grounds for a lawsuit? All that plus the professors struggle with virtual classes, dish on tell-all books, and continue their annual tradition of making the nation’s most unreliable World Series predictions.

It may be the winter session in the faculty lounge, but things are heating up as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo clash on a number of today’s topics. On the docket: Was Mitt Romney justified in his impeachment vote? Is President Trump wrong to override the Justice Department on the Roger Stone case? Can states punish members of the Electoral College for defying the will of the voters? Can state and local governments resist the feds’ efforts to curb illegal immigration? And do the sign-stealing Houston Astros have to pay up for ruining a pitcher’s career? All that plus the gang weighs in on Korean cinema, back tattoos, and one of the professors (shouldn’t it be obvious?) getting shushed on a film set.

In a Law Talk first, Professors Richard Epstein & John Yoo and host Troy Senik are gathered in the same studio to kick off their tenth year of the podcast. On this episode: Can Congress rein in President Trump’s power to pursue military action against Iran? What was Nancy Pelosi trying to accomplish by withholding the articles of impeachment? Can the Justice Department compel Apple to create a backdoor on encrypted devices? And is Utah’s effort to rescind a personalized license plate a potential First Amendment violation? All that and more as the faculty lounge reopens for 2020.

It’s the holiday season in the faculty lounge and the subpoenas are hung by the chimney with care. On this episode, Professors Epstein and Yoo do a deep dive into the strengths and weaknesses of the impeachment case, the shortcomings of the Inspector General’s report on the Russia investigation, and the greatest legal question of our time: can you impeach an ex-president? All that plus Richard breaks down the economics of Christmas, John calls for civil disobedience in the Berkeley food scene, and Franklin Pierce finally gets called to account.

Impeachment is on the syllabus as the faculty lounge reopens its doors. In this episode: Does the Democrats’ pivot from ‘quid pro quo’ to ‘bribery’ add up? Has the first week of witnesses changed either professor's mind? And when exactly would a White House have the authority to hold up foreign aid? All that plus analysis of what’s most likely to compel the release of the Trump tax returns (hint: it’s not the case that looks headed for the Supreme Court) and the strange case of the Equal Rights Amendment, which is either one vote away from being added to the Constitution or already dead on arrival. We’ll let the professors explain.

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 parse the case for impeachment, and analyze some of the biggest cases coming before the Supreme Court: will a new lineup of justices change the Court’s approach to abortion regulation? Will a ruling about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau deal a blow to the administrative state? Are gay and transgendered employees protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act? All that plus a detour into antiquities law, a (partial) endorsement of imperialism, a POTUS busted for speeding, and an answer to America’s most burning legal question: could the president literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not pay a price?

The men of Law Talk reconvene between their respective journeys to Greece and there’s a very full docket. On this episode: could President Trump’s conversations with Ukraine lay the predicate for impeachment? What’s the proper role for the U.S. in the Iran-Saudi Arabia conflict? Is the FDA within its rights to crack down on vaping? Should California be able to go its own way on regulating automobile emissions? Can the president solve West Coast homelessness? And why has New Mexico made it a little more dangerous to get married?

Once a year we throw open the doors of the faculty lounge and let the Law Talk audience ask questions of Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo. This year’s result: a conversation that touches on everything from acquiring Greenland to whether John Adams was a constitutional scofflaw, from whether federal courts have gotten too trigger happy with injunctions to which foods make the professors wretch. Most importantly: which class did Richard struggle with in law school? The answer will ... not surprise you at all.

It’s time for summer school in the faculty lounge and Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo are reviewing the Supreme Court term that was. On this episode: was the census ruling a backdoor victory for critics of the administrative state? Are critics right that Alex Acosta should have done more to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein? John […] Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/law-talk/you-cant-lick-it/. Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/. Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.