Birthright, Free Speech, and War: Law Talk Live at UT Austin
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “Birthright, Free Speech, and War: Law Talk Live at UT Austin” inside PodZeus.
In this live episode of Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke at UT Austin, hosts Charles C.W. Cook, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein engage in a spirited debate on three major legal topics: birthright citizenship, free speech in professional contexts, and the laws of war. The discussion begins with a deep dive into the Supreme Court's recent oral arguments on birthright citizenship, where Epstein expresses sorrow over the perceived failure of the justices to overturn Wong Kim Ark, arguing that the doctrine circumvents federal naturalization statutes. Yoo counters that precedent, historical practice, and the lack of a viable legislative path make a reversal unlikely, despite the policy concerns around birthright tourism. The conversation then shifts to a First Amendment case involving Colorado’s regulation of therapy practices, with both experts agreeing that the state’s attempt to control professional speech violates free expression, especially when the treatment is non-physical. Epstein emphasizes the danger of licensing bodies becoming tools of ideological suppression, while Yoo warns against the slippery slope of regulating speech under the guise of professional ethics. Finally, the panel examines war crimes in the context of U.S.-Iran tensions, with Epstein condemning Iran’s attacks on civilian infrastructure as clear violations of the laws of war, while Yoo argues that the U.S. and Israel’s actions, though controversial, are justified under anticipatory self-defense. The episode concludes with a broader philosophical discussion on the nature of international law, its enforceability, and the role of power in shaping compliance.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn Wong Kim Ark due to strong precedent and reliance interests, despite policy concerns about birthright tourism.
Professional licensing bodies should not be allowed to censor speech under the First Amendment, especially when the practice is non-physical and involves ideas.
Targeting civilian infrastructure in war, as Iran has done, constitutes a clear violation of the laws of war under the principle of distinction.
Anticipatory self-defense, while not formally recognized in all international law, is a legitimate and necessary doctrine in the face of credible, long-term threats.
International law, though not enforceable in the same way as domestic law, carries normative weight through state practice, reciprocity, and reputational consequences.
…and 3 more takeaways available in PodZeus
Welcome to Law Talk Live: Birthright Citizenship Debate
The episode opens with Charles Cook welcoming the audience to the first live episode of Law Talk, introducing the panel and setting the stage for a deep dive into birthright citizenship. Cook frames the discussion around the recent Supreme Court oral arguments and the upcoming decision.
Epstein’s Tears: The Case Against Birthright Citizenship
“When I started the arguments, I began to weep. And when I ended the arguments, I continued to weep.”
Yoo’s Counter: Precedent, Practice, and the Limits of Originalism
John Yoo challenges Epstein’s originalist stance, arguing that precedent and historical practice are too strong to be overturned. He emphasizes that the Court is unlikely to abandon Wong Kim Ark, especially given the lack of congressional or executive action to change the status quo.
Free Speech in Therapy: The Colorado Case
“If the Southern states had used this power before Brown, they could have just forbid lawyers from making arguments asking for Plessy to be overturned.”
War Crimes and the Laws of War: Iran’s Violations
“99.9% of the targets Iran has been striking in Israel are civilian targets. That's just an obvious and plain violation of the laws of war.”
“99.9% of the targets Iran has been striking in Israel are civilian targets. That's just an obvious and plain violation of the laws of war.”
“If the Southern states had used this power before Brown, they could have just forbid lawyers from making arguments asking for Plessy to be overturned.”
“When I started the arguments, I began to weep. And when I ended the arguments, I continued to weep.”
Host
Guests
Richard Epstein
person
John Yoo
person
Charles C.W. Cook
person
Supreme Court
organization
Wong Kim Ark
other
birthright citizenship
other
Colorado
other
Iran
place
United States
place
14th Amendment
other
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “Birthright, Free Speech, and War: Law Talk Live at UT Austin” inside PodZeus.
Start discovering podcast insights today
Start with a 7-day trial and explore a growing catalog of popular podcasts. No credit card required.
No credit card required • 7-day trial • Cancel anytime
