Richard and Adam close the book on the Trump years — except for the whole post-presidential impeachment thing. And Richard elaborates his case for regulating Twitter as a “common carrier.” Looking ahead to what the new Biden Administration might bring about, they both already disagree with some of the Administration’s day-one policies. Does the end of Trump’s era, and the beginning of Biden’s, mark the end of Richard’s and Adam’s own “reasonable disagreements” with each other? Surely not! But the disagreements will be fewer and farther between.

Richard Epstein provides in-depth legal analysis of the 25th Amendment, the impeachment count against President Trump, the ability of Congress to bar a president from future office, and the legality of impeaching a president after he’s departed office.

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.

Richard Epstein analyzes the dramatic events of the last week through a legal prism: Did Congress really have the power to object to the electoral vote? Should President Trump be removed from office in light of the assault on the capitol? Does the prospect of President Trump pardoning himself call into question the breadth of the pardon power? Plus, a look back at the consequences of the 2016 Presidential election in which Professor Epstein finds himself in the rare position of finding a question too difficult to answer.

A day after rioters stormed the Capitol to disrupt Congress’s certification of Joe Biden’s election, Richard and Adam reflect on yesterday’s tragic events, and the path forward. They also discuss the Democratic Party’s victories in Georgia, winning control of the Senate; and President-elect Biden’s nomination of Merrick Garland to be Attorney General.

President-elect Biden has begun to announce his intended nominations for Cabinet seats and other high-level posts. In today’s episode, Richard and Adam analyze several of those picks, with an eye to what this means for foreign policy, climate regulation, and other specifics, and a broader view of what to expect from the administrative state overall. And they end with brief thoughts on post-election litigation, from the failed Pennsylvania lawsuit to the Texas Attorney General’s new one. We’ll be back after the holidays.

Richard Epstein casts a critical eye on Nasdaq’s proposal to impose diversity requirements on the companies listed on its exchange.

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?

Richard Epstein analyzes the major legal plot lines attending the presidential transition: The Trump campaign’s frantic efforts to keep the president’s prospects alive in court, the possibility of a raft of last-minute presidential pardons, and the decision by Attorney General William Barr to transform U.S. Attorney John Durham — currently investigating the origins of the Russia probe — into a special counsel.

In today’s episode, Richard and Adam discuss the Supreme Court’s Thanksgiving-eve order blocking Governor Andrew Cuomo’s COVID-19 rules against religious gatherings — what it says about the justices, and the rule of law, during the pandemic. Then they consider the prospects for post-election litigation making its way to the Supreme Court, and President Trump’s pardon of Michael Flynn.

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?

Richard Epstein looks at the policy proposals that will be at the forefront of the Biden Administration, from climate change to immigration to forgiving student loans.

In their first episode since the presidential election, Richard and Adam discuss the result—and the prospects for post-election litigation. Then they turn to Congress: the House, where Republicans gained ground; and the Senate, where things remain on a knife’s edge. Adam and Richard look to the weeks ahead, and to what the longer-term future might hold for the Republican and Democratic Parties.

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.

Richard Epstein looks at the Supreme Court’s pre-election decisions on state voting procedures, considers the likelihood that the ultimate outcome of the race will come down to a Supreme Court decision, and responds to the argument that Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from any such cases.

Richard Epstein examines the merits of the antitrust case against Google, as well as calls to regulate how social media companies regulate content; looks back to the Microsoft antitrust case to explain what lessons it may hold for the current lawsuit; and makes his predictions for the trajectory of tech regulation under Biden or Trump administrations.

In their last pre-election episode, Richard and Adam discuss Judge Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings; the Supreme Court’s next Obamacare case; and social media companies’ power over information itself.

Richard Epstein scrutinizes the Senate’s confirmation process for Amy Coney Barrett, considers how much deference legislators should give to presidents of the opposite party for their judicial picks, and describes which areas of law he thinks a more conservative court should focus on reforming.

Richard Epstein previews some of the most contentious cases on the docket in the new Supreme Court term. Will a change to the individual mandate spell the end of the Affordable Care Act? Can religious organizations be excluded from placing foster children if they refuse to work with same-sex couples? And what role will the Court play in the tumultuous 2020 election?

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.