The Big Beautiful Originalism Debate

This week, the Law Talk crew tackles Trump’s White House ballroom fight, the latest battle over birthright citizenship, Anthony Fauci’s decision to plead the Fifth, and the controversial pardons issued by Joe Biden. They debate the limits of executive power, the authority of the courts and Congress, and whether America’s expansive presidential pardon power has finally gone too far.

Can a U.S. mayor enforce an International Criminal Court warrant? Has President Trump found a new legal path to tariffs after earlier setbacks? And can the government really seize a $95,000 airplane over a six-pack of beer? Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C. W. Cooke unpack these legal controversies before closing with a spirited debate over which Supreme Court justices deserve a place on the judicial Mount Rushmore.

Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein break down three major Supreme Court decisions from the end of the term: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case that left the status quo intact while sparking a debate over originalism, birth tourism, and Wong Kim Ark; West Virginia v. BPJ, the transgender-athletes case addressing Title IX, equal protection, women’s sports, and federalism; and National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the campaign-finance ruling that further limits restrictions on coordinated party spending and raises big questions about money, speech, corruption, and the future strength of political parties.

In part one of our Supreme Court decisions coverage, Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo break down the decisions handed down today, beginning with the Court’s treatment of presidential removal power in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook (no relation) —the first apparently overruling Humphrey’s Executor for ordinary agencies, the second preserving a major carveout for the Federal Reserve. They also debate Chatrie v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving law enforcement’s use of geofencing warrants and cellphone location data, and close with Watson v. Republican National Committee, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Along the way, the hosts argue over the administrative state, judicial independence, election integrity, and whether the Roberts Court is as predictable—or as partisan—as its critics claim. Part two will be on Thursday, with a decision expected on (cue dramatic music)...birthright citizenship!

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.

In this episode of Law Talk Live—recorded at the University of Texas at Austin and hosted by the Civitas Institute—Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein debate  some of the most contentious constitutional questions of the moment. The panel examines the future of birthright citizenship in light of recent Supreme Court arguments, the tension between free speech and professional regulation in a major First Amendment case, and the legal and moral framework governing modern warfare, including what counts as a war crime. Blending sharp disagreement, historical insight, and a dose of humor, the conversation explores how precedent, originalism, and real-world pressures collide when the Constitution is pushed to its limits.

John Yoo, Richard Epstein, and Charles C.W. Cooke dive into the legal firestorm surrounding U.S. actions in Iran—debating “imminence,” anticipatory self-defense, and whether international law has any real teeth. Then, they tackle a major 2nd Amendment case testing whether drug use can justify a permanent gun ban—and whether courts or legislatures should draw that line. Finally, a heated clash over parental rights, the Constitution, and California’s school policies raises a deeper question: where do these rights actually come from?

Recent Supreme Court rulings have put new limits on the president’s ability to impose sweeping tariffs under claims of national emergency. The Law Talk crew breaks down what the Court actually decided, why Trump’s emergency-tariff theory failed, and how trade law, constitutional structure, and basic economics collided in the case.  They also explore who really controls tariff power under the Constitution, why trade deficits don’t qualify as emergencies, and how doctrines like non-delegation and “major questions” are quietly reshaping executive authority.

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?