Main Justice – Honoring Veterans Day

Podcast: Main Justice
Hosts: Andrew Weissmann & Mary McCord
Guest: Tess Bridgman
Date: November 12, 2025
Episode Theme:
A deep dive into legal and constitutional challenges facing the United States as Trump’s new administration comes to power, with a special focus on significant legal cases at the Supreme Court, the administration’s use of military power, rule of law, and the importance of Veterans Day.

Main Theme and Purpose

On this special Veterans Day episode, Main Justice explores the evolving legal landscape under President Trump’s new administration. Hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord honor veterans’ service and civic engagement, then examine urgent legal controversies: the fight over SNAP benefits and the shutdown, contested National Guard deployments, and the administration’s extralegal military strikes in international waters. A central theme is how current events test the boundaries of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the judiciary’s role in U.S. democracy.

Summary of Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Honoring Veterans and Their Ongoing Contributions

[01:12–02:43]

• Mary McCord opens by praising veterans not just for their military service, but for “standing up and speaking out” in civic and democratic arenas.
  • Quote: “I am so grateful not only for their service but also for what they're doing in continued service to the country.” (Mary McCord, 01:36)
• Andrew Weissmann reflects on his father's Army service and on the importance of Veterans Day as a time of reflection and gratitude.

2. Two Major Supreme Court Cases Brewing

a. SNAP Benefits and the Government Shutdown

[02:43–14:09]

• Context:
  Ongoing litigation over the attempted halt of SNAP (food stamp) benefits during a government shutdown, with significant movement at various court levels.
• Key Legal Points:
  • Lower courts ordered continued funding using established contingency and discretionary funds, but the administration failed to comply promptly.
  • The Supreme Court (Justice Jackson) issued a temporary stay so the First Circuit could rule on a federal request; plaintiffs and DOJ filed opposing briefs.
  • Policy vs. Legal Debate:
    The hosts question the administration’s priorities, highlighting the human impact:
    • “America likes to say they're the richest country in the world and that one in eight people are eligible for SNAP benefits... What does it say that we're not prioritizing hunger as an issue?” (Andrew Weissmann, 03:02)
    • “This is a human issue... there's been other movements of money during this shutdown to make sure other priorities ... are being covered but not the priority of people eating.” (Mary McCord, 13:37)
  • Notable Quote from Circuit Opinion:
    • “Before early November, USDA did not even perform the calculation to determine what percentage of November benefits from could be paid with the contingency funds.” (Andrew Weissmann, 12:15)

b. National Guard Deployment: “Regular Forces” and the Law

[14:09–19:29]

• Issue:
  The White House’s attempt to deploy the National Guard in Illinois without exhausting use of “regular forces,” as required by statute.
• Highlighted Amicus Brief:
  Marty Lederman’s amicus brief argues “regular forces” means military, not law enforcement—as per the history and statutory language.
  • “If Donald Trump has not first tried to even use the military, he cannot call in the National Guard.” (Andrew Weissmann, 15:55)
• Government’s Legal Argument:
  DOJ’s brief stretches “regular forces” to include federal law enforcement and argues for total presidential deference, invoking “the presumption of regularity.”
  • “They say, even if regular forces might mean the regular military first, the President didn't specify who the regular forces were ... And it says courts must presume that he also considered the standing military... because of the presumption of regularity.” (Mary McCord, 16:39)
• Pushback:
  The hosts mock the government’s position as “magical thinking” and emphasize the seriousness of judicial skepticism—citing a federal judge’s finding:
  • “The court does not find this testimony to be credible.” (Andrew Weissmann, 19:29)

3. DOJ’s Rhetoric: Todd Blanche and the “War on Judges”

[22:34–29:24]

• Event:
  Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s Federalist Society speech depicted a “war against rogue activist judges,” which the hosts call out as incendiary and misleading.
  • “He urged young lawyers to join the administration's, quote, war against ... rogue activist judges.” (Mary McCord, 23:13)
• Hosts’ Critique:
  They decry the politicization of law and attack on judicial independence, especially as conservative judges are among those ruling against the administration.
  • “To say you have a war on them does not deal with the facts ... You have judges of all stripes who are pushing back, saying that you're violating the law.” (Andrew Weissmann, 24:27)
• Context:
  Recent resignation of Judge Mark Wolf (Reagan appointee) reflects discomfort with attacks on the judiciary, threats, and politicized prosecutions.

4. Presidential Pardons: Lawful, Yet Outrageous?

[29:24–34:29]

• Pardon Power Analysis:
  Review of Trump administration’s prolific use of pardons covering allies (fake electors, January 6th participants), public corruption, and high-profile convicts.
  • “This is an example of something that is lawful but in my view outrageous…” (Andrew Weissmann, 30:31)
• Concerns Raised:
  The eradication of the Department of Justice’s careful process for vetting pardons; current pardon attorney holds a dual role as head of a political task force.

5. Feature Interview: Tess Bridgman on Drone Strikes and the Rule of Law

[36:10–64:14]

a. War Powers Resolution and Executive Authority

[37:49–45:00]

• Legal Framework Explained:
  • The Constitution vests power to declare war in Congress; the President’s commander-in-chief powers were originally meant to be operational.
  • The War Powers Resolution (1973): Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of hostilities and withdraw forces within 60 days absent Congressional approval.
• Modern Practice:
  Over time, executive interpretations have greatly expanded unilateral military power, often ignoring both the letter and intent of Congress.

b. "Hostilities" and White House Legal Maneuvers

[47:20–54:46]

• Key Legal Shift:
  Ongoing strikes on “cartel vessels” in the Caribbean/Eastern Pacific, originally justified under “armed conflict,” are now defended as not meeting the statutory definition of “hostilities” to evade War Powers Resolution triggers.
• Tess Bridgman:
  • “It takes most of modern warfare off the table, to be honest, except for the exceptional large ground confrontation... Congress was trying to police the slippery slopes that lead to hostilities.” (Tess Bridgman, 51:30)
  • The administration’s switcheroo is reminiscent of past executive overreach, like the Obama administration in Libya.

c. Accountability, Immunity, and the Dangers of Secret Legal Memos

[54:46–58:59]

• Concerns with Current Practice:
  • Firing of military legal advisors (JAGs) and reliance on secret OLC opinions risks shielding officials and service members from accountability for potential unlawful killings.
  • “It's a problem of our time that I think we'll look back and say was defining, and we'll wish people had paid more attention to it. Look, this is the President ...claiming that he has the authority to use the military to kill outside of the law, right?” (Tess Bridgman, 56:47)
• Call for Accountability:
  Responsibility should fall on those authorizing the strikes, not only on the operators.

d. Congressional Oversight and the Limits of Law

[59:46–63:28]

• Legislative Response:
  Several War Powers Resolution votes in Congress have failed, largely along partisan lines. Mechanisms for enforcing limits on presidential war-making are weakened; oversight and public accountability are more important than ever.
  • “Congress needs to be shining a spotlight ... until they can get the votes to rein this in through funding cutoffs or otherwise.” (Tess Bridgman, 62:23)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|---------|-------| | 01:36 | Mary McCord | “I am so grateful not only for their service but also for what they're doing in continued service to the country.” | | 03:02 | Andrew Weissmann | “America likes to say they're the richest country in the world... What does it say that we're not prioritizing hunger as an issue?” | | 15:55 | Andrew Weissmann | “If Donald Trump has not first tried to even use the military, he cannot call in the National Guard.” | | 16:39 | Mary McCord | “They say, even if regular forces might mean the regular military first, the President didn't specify who the regular forces were ... courts must presume that he also considered the standing military...” | | 24:27 | Andrew Weissmann | “To say you have a war on them does not deal with the facts ... You have judges of all stripes who are pushing back, saying that you're violating the law.” | | 30:31 | Andrew Weissmann | “This is an example of something that is lawful but in my view outrageous because the President has pardon power and it is extremely broad under the Constitution.” | | 51:30 | Tess Bridgman | “It takes most of modern warfare off the table, to be honest, except for the exceptional large ground confrontation...” | | 56:47 | Tess Bridgman | “It's a problem of our time that I think we'll look back and say was defining, and we'll wish people had paid more attention to it... This is the President ...claiming that he has the authority to use the military to kill outside of the law, right?” |

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Veterans Day reflections: 01:12–02:43
• Supreme Court SNAP case update: 02:43–14:09
• National Guard deployment and ‘regular forces’: 14:09–19:29
• Todd Blanche’s ‘war on judges’ speech: 22:34–29:24
• Trump’s use of the pardon power: 29:24–34:29
• Interview with Tess Bridgman (War Powers, drone strikes): 36:10–64:17

Overall Tone

The tone remains deeply analytical, urgent, and at times incredulous. The hosts mix legal expertise with clear moral concern, often pressing for greater accountability and transparency—especially where fundamental rights and constitutional norms are threatened. Guest Tess Bridgman brings a sobering perspective on the erosion of legal standards in wartime decisions, making this a particularly pointed Veterans Day episode.

For listeners:
This episode is a must-hear for anyone seeking a rigorous, insider’s view of how the rule of law is being tested in Washington—covering urgent cases about hunger, the limits of executive military power, and the politicization of American justice at the highest levels.