Roundup at The Supreme Court

Charles C. W. Cooke and Richard Epstein break down the Supreme Court’s Roundup v. Monsanto decision, arguing that the case was widely miscast as a simple fight between big business and cancer victims. Epstein explains why the real issue was federal preemption under FIFRA, the limits of state-law warning-label lawsuits, and the danger of letting juries override regulatory judgments on complex scientific questions. Along the way, he surveys the evolution of product liability law, the risks of over-litigation, and why different products—from pesticides to vaccines—may require very different legal treatment.

Richard Epstein takes on the growing obsession with billionaires, wealth taxes, and economic “justice,” arguing that making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer. Using Elon Musk’s hypothetical trillionaire status as a jumping-off point, Epstein explains why great fortunes are usually tied up in productive enterprises, not bank vaults, and why efforts to confiscate or redistribute them often destroy wealth, drive capital out of high-tax states, and leave everyone worse off. From California’s tax experiments to New York estate taxes to the politics of envy, Epstein makes the case that prosperity—not punishment—is the better path to helping the poor.

This week, Richard Epstein weighs in on war, deterrence, and the limits of modern military strategy. Drawing lessons from World War II, Vietnam, Gaza, and the current conflict with Iran, Epstein argues that wars are either fought to win or not fought at all. He contends that America’s fear of escalation, reliance on limited objectives, and preference for negotiated settlements have produced strategic drift rather than decisive victory. Professor Epstein also delivers a sharp critique of Donald Trump’s handling of Iran, defends the logic of unconditional surrender, and explains why he believes half-measures can be more dangerous—and more costly—than total commitment.

Richard Epstein analyzes the Trump administration’s controversial $1.776 billion settlement fund, arguing that it represents a profound breach of constitutional norms, public trust, and basic principles of good government. From standing doctrine and congressional power to taxation, impeachment, and the limits of executive authority, Epstein explains why he believes the scheme is legally dubious, politically explosive, and one of the most troubling examples of presidential overreach in modern American history.

Charles C. W. Cooke and Richard Epstein break down the Supreme Court’s latest Voting Rights Act decision, examining how the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais narrows the use of race in redistricting and marks a turning point in election law. Epstein argues that the Court has finally begun to rein in what he sees as decades of overreach, tracing the evolution of voting rights jurisprudence from the Civil Rights era to today and questioning whether majority-minority districts have outlived their original purpose. The conversation explores the legal foundations of racial gerrymandering, the unintended political consequences of engineered districts, and the broader implications for polarization, representation, and the future of redistricting in the United States.

Richard Epstein examines the unfolding U.S. confrontation with Iran through both a strategic and constitutional lens, arguing that President Trump’s approach reflects a deeper tension between military necessity and political constraint. Epstein contends that limited or “half-war” measures—such as reliance on air power or pursuit of partial ceasefires—invite instability, while effective strategy demands either decisive dominance or restraint from intervention altogether. The conversation then pivots to the constitutional stakes, with Epstein criticizing the War Powers Act as an impractical and possibly unconstitutional encroachment on executive authority, arguing that modern warfare requires speed, secrecy, and unified command that Congress is structurally ill-equipped to provide. The discussion highlights the enduring conflict between law and strategy, suggesting that America’s greatest vulnerability may lie not only in foreign adversaries, but in its own divided system of war-making power.

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