Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Become a member.
Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
John Yoo
John Yoo is a senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute, and a distinguished visiting professor at the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin. He is also the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley where he supervises the Public Law and Policy Program among other programs at Berkeley Law. Concurrently, he is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Series
Recent Episodes
Can the city of Boulder set climate policy for the world? Can Colorado make Catholic preschools choose between their faith and public funding? And can a six-pack of beer cost you an airplane? Richard Epstein and John Yoo join Charles C. W. Cooke to preview the Supreme Court’s coming term, tackling climate lawsuits, religious liberty, AR-15 bans, and the Eighth Amendment—with plenty of constitutional sparring and a surprising amount of agreement.
September 2026
Can the government track your car, can the president show reporters the door, and can you blame a chatbot for someone’s crimes? Charles C. W. Cooke, Richard Epstein, and John Yoo tackle Flock surveillance cameras and the Fourth Amendment, the fight over White House press access, and the limits of AI liability—before taking on Meta’s social media settlement and asking when settling a lawsuit became a license to write everyone else’s rules.
August 2026
Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein debate whether Meta can really be held responsible for the harms of social media, whether Texas can put the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, and whether the enormous defamation judgments against Donald Trump can survive Supreme Court scrutiny. They conduct an intense debate over Trump’s White House ballroom, including questions of standing, congressional authority, private funding, and just how far a president can go in remaking the executive mansion. Across all four disputes, the conversation keeps returning to the same fault lines: runaway damages, judicial power, constitutional limits, and whether courts are applying the law—or inventing it.
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.
July 2026
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.
June 2026
May 2026
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.
We've had some gonzo episodes before, and a couple of trainwrecks, but this is the first-ever episode that is actually two episodes edited together, with sequence changes, new sound effects, canned insults from John, etc. I explained in a Substack post our technical difficulties that arose in the livestream, and here is the fix. Let us know what you think! In fits and starts we do cover some breaking legal developments, whether Israel has any hope of a libal action against the New York Times (which richly deserves it), the surprising statesmanlike bearing of President Trump, some surprising remarks on anti-Semitism from T.S. Eliot, and more. So here we go!
- Organization
Ricochet
April 2026
Vincent Phillip MunozMarch 2026
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?
To paraphrase—awkwardly—that 70s-era lyric, "International Law! What Is It Good For? Absolutely. Nothing! Good God!" Lucretia host's this week's episode, which combines her skepticism of international law, especially as it relates to our current military operations against Iran, along with her impatience with our willful refusal to take radical Islam seriously, now that Islam-inspired violence in the U.S. is now a daily occurence. The first topic was inspired by John Yoo's latest article on the subject; the latter subject inspired by the news headlines, needless to say. Oh, we also make the case briefly for invading Iceland. It has to do with hamburgers. Also there are dogs.
- Organization
Scroll for more