Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

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.