Main Justice (MSNBC)
Episode: “Real Life Consequences”
Date: September 17, 2025
Hosts: Andrew Weissmann & Mary McCord
Guest: Ryan Goodman (Professor, NYU Law & co-editor-in-chief, Just Security)
Overview
In this episode, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord dissect recent legal events within and around the Trump Department of Justice, focusing on the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, growing lawsuits from ousted DOJ officials, and the latest data on the erosion of the “presumption of regularity” in government litigation. Special guest Ryan Goodman joins to discuss his research on unprecedented judicial skepticism towards DOJ representations in court. The episode closes with a legal update on President Trump’s attempts to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and what this signals for separation of powers in the U.S. government.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The Charlie Kirk Shooting and Its Ramifications
Starts approximately at 02:05
State vs. Federal Charges
- The shooting of Charlie Kirk is expected to be charged under Utah state law—potentially including aggravated murder and other severe charges, possibly up to the death penalty.
- Federal Legal Gaps: While the act likely fits the definition of “domestic terrorism” under federal law, the U.S. code does not criminalize domestic terrorism per se unless connected to a foreign terrorist organization or targeting federal officials/property.
- Mary McCord (07:57): “But [the federal terrorism definition] does not carry with it an actual criminal offense under the US Code… One of the big gaps in our terrorism statutes.”
- Hate crime charges are also unlikely, as federal statutes do not consider political views as a protected category.
- Possible federal firearm charges or violations could arise, but, as of now, evidence is unclear.
FBI’s Response & After Action Concerns
- FBI Director Kash Patel’s public handling has provoked criticism:
- Twice preemptively announced that a suspect was in custody, potentially misleading the public and endangering the case.
- Delayed the release of suspect images pending his personal arrival at a press conference, possibly hindering the investigation.
- Entered into a public spat with state/local law enforcement, allegedly undermining crucial working relationships.
- Mary McCord (18:31): “Don’t get in a public spat between the FBI and state and local law enforcement… It is completely unproductive and undermining.”
- Both hosts stress the necessity of impartial, transparent after-action reviews in all major investigations, per their DOJ training.
Personnel/Expertise Fallout
- Discussion links the FBI's handling of the Kirk case to the mass firing of veteran agents with counterterrorism experience—potentially hampering agency capability in crisis response.
2. Lawsuits by Fired DOJ and FBI Officials
Begins at 22:38
Driscoll v. DOJ and Related Cases
- Three high-ranking FBI agents, including a former Acting Director, have filed complaints for dismissal allegedly due to insufficient political loyalty. The Maya Comey lawsuit (a New York federal prosecutor) echoes these claims.
- White House vetting reportedly involved improper political litmus tests (“Who did you vote for?” “When did you start supporting President Trump?”).
- Mary McCord (24:21): “[He] refused to answer. Said that was an inappropriate question with Hatch Act implications.”
- Firings were often executed without cause, process, or even basic compassion (notably for a terminally ill agent).
- Allegations include due process violations and First Amendment retaliation for perceived political affiliation.
- The hosts highlight systemic loss of expertise, risk to DOJ integrity, and stark human consequences.
3. Erosion of the “Presumption of Regularity” in Government Litigation
Interview with Ryan Goodman starts at 31:15
What Is the Presumption of Regularity?
- A longstanding judicial doctrine giving government representations in court a large “benefit of the doubt”—assuming adherence to law and factual accuracy barring clear evidence to the contrary.
- Ryan Goodman (31:24): “It basically means that the courts… will just presume the government is providing truthful information, [has] gone through regular processes… abiding by their duties of office…”
- This deference makes it harder for plaintiffs to obtain discovery or challenge government actions.
Goodman’s Findings: Documentation of Unprecedented Judicial Skepticism
- Three Buckets of Judicial Concern:
- Noncompliance with Court Orders
- Found 16 cases since January 2025 where courts explicitly held DOJ in violation of orders, with language like “flagrant violation” and “blatant disregard.”
- Ryan Goodman (39:52): “It’s astounding… I can’t think of flagrant noncompliance in violation of a judge’s order [in prior administrations].”
- Factual Misrepresentations or Dishonesty
- Judges have caught the DOJ in multiple, severe misrepresentations. Examples include false affidavits in deportation and immigration cases, and critical errors in cases involving unaccompanied Guatemalan minors.
- Mary McCord (46:27): “Somewhere somebody is either lying or cavalierly dealing with the facts.”
- Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct
- More than 50 findings in a few months where government actions were ruled “arbitrary and capricious”—a sign the regular processes are breaking down.
- Ryan Goodman (49:21): “It’s inconceivable… no comparison [in modern history].”
- Noncompliance with Court Orders
Broader Implications
- The collapse of the presumption of regularity undermines both DOJ legacy and real-life liberty: when courts defer to a government that hasn’t earned it, individuals and their rights are harmed.
- Andrew Weissmann (49:52): “That presumption… when it’s accorded to the government without being supported… hurts people. It has a real life consequence.”
Resource
- Goodman’s compendium and methodology is available at Just Security (link in show notes). He plans to update it as cases develop.
4. Legal Battle Over Firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook
Begins at 52:43
Constitutional Issues at Stake
- Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook (Fed Governor) raises fundamental separation-of-powers questions. The district court quickly enjoined the firing; the D.C. Circuit declined to stay the injunction due to lack of due process.
- Core Question: Can the President remove certain independent agency officials at will, or does Congress’s statutory “for cause” protection prevail?
- Supreme Court may weigh in, with hints they see the Federal Reserve as a special case due to its unique structure and importance to non-political economic decision-making.
- Andrew Weissmann (54:41): “No one branch has unilateral power… that friction of the three branches… assures we won’t have authoritarianism.”
- The Cook and Comey lawsuits, among others, represent a major constitutional clash on presidential power versus congressional constraint and civil service protections.
Notable Quotes & Key Moments (with Timestamps)
- On FBI’s After-Action Duty:
- Andrew Weissmann (06:44): “No matter what situation, whether handled well or not well, we did an after action… any agency that is worth its salt owes that to the public… and to Charlie Kirk and his family.”
- On Political Litmus Tests for DOJ Officials:
- Mary McCord (24:51): “When did you start supporting President Trump? …He refused to answer. Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections? He refused to answer. That should kind of tell you all you really needed to know about the litmus test…”
- On the Presumption of Regularity Breakdown:
- Ryan Goodman (37:18): "Judges are thinking and saying explicitly that maybe this presumption… has been forfeited…"
- Ryan Goodman (41:35): “…flagging every case in which a court has actually said the government is in violation of court orders… to me, the number is astounding.”
- Andrew Weissmann (49:52): “People are hurt by this. It has a real life consequence in court when judges accord a presumption which you don’t deserve.”
- On the Broader Threat to Checks and Balances:
- Andrew Weissmann (54:41): “No one branch has unilateral power to do whatever it wants… that friction… assures that we won’t have authoritarianism…”
- Mary McCord (57:21): “…the Supreme Court has already kind of given this little indication that… the Federal Reserve might be different…”
Timestamps for Major Segments
- 00:51-02:05: Show opening and discussion of guest format and topics
- 02:05-20:43: Charlie Kirk shooting – legal ramifications and FBI response
- 22:38-30:28: Lawsuits from ousted FBI/DOJ officials
- 31:15-51:12: Interview with Ryan Goodman on the presumption of regularity
- 52:43-59:39: Federal Reserve/Lisa Cook firing and implications for separation of powers
Tone, Takeaways, and Final Thoughts
The episode is direct and urgent, blending technical legal analysis with passionate advocacy for the rule of law. The hosts—both long-serving DOJ lawyers—are explicit about the danger posed by eroding legal norms in the new Trump DOJ: not merely bureaucratic dysfunction, but the risk of lasting damage to American democracy.
Ultimately, Main Justice warns that real-life consequences are at stake: the safety of public officials, the integrity of independent agencies, and the fundamental trust in government representations before the courts. As Weissmann closes (59:34): “Will we live under a system of checks and balances? …It is the obligation of the court to be the first… not the last… to defend that.”
Related Resource: Find Goodman’s full report and supporting documentation at Just Security (linked in show notes).