The Battle For Democracy
The Week In Review (3/13–3/20), BTH–Vol. 3.3
This week, we witnessed a deeply troubling shift—one that signals a growing defiance of legal norms. From the administration’s attempts to circumvent judicial authority with the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and the public call to defy judicial orders, the courts have once again become the last bulwark against executive overreach.
In Reality Check, I explore the implications of an Attorney General openly attacking a federal judge for upholding the rule of law. When due process is framed as “supporting terrorists,” we are in dangerous territory. The real threat isn’t just the erosion of legal norms—it’s the normalization of that erosion.
In Questions Answered, I address the broader constitutional crisis unfolding. From the fight over birthright citizenship to the administration’s attacks on major law firms defending democratic institutions, these legal battles are setting precedents that will define the future of our democracy.
On Main Justice, I break down the latest developments with my podcast co-host Mary McCord, including Chief Justice Roberts’ rare public remarks and what they signal about the judiciary’s role in checking executive power. The courts are holding the line—for now. But the question remains: how long can they stand alone?
Finally, there is a round up of this week’s television and radio appearances and a recording of a deeply satisfying conversation with my old DOJ colleague Joyce Vance .
Stay informed. Stay engaged. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
—Andrew
P.S. I posted a clip that seemed resonant from Caligula of a despot and his relationship with the Senate. See below:
Here’s what we’ve covered on Substack this past week (3/13-3/20), including both public and paid (🔒) subscriber posts. If you missed anything, the links are below.
Vol 3.2.a
Vol 3.2.b:
Vol 3.2.c:
Vol 3.1.d:
Vol 3.1.e:
This Week’s Appearances:
The Brian Lehrer Show – The Trump Administration and the Rule of Law
Trump’s Doomsday Doctrine: Deportations, Defiance, and the Alien Enemies Act
'Stand your ground, or you're caving': I react to Trump's attacks on rule of law
UPCOMING NEXT WEEK:
For paid subscribers you can continue submitting questions by using the reply feature in the Substack “chat” linked here.
If you’re finding Behind The Headlines valuable, upgrading to a paid membership gives you access to deeper analysis, direct Q&As, and exclusive content that helps make sense of the chaos.
How to Upgrade to a Paid Subscription on Substack
A quick note for those who want access to all Q&A responses—or just want to support the work we’re doing here. Upgrading to a paid subscription directly from within the Substack app is currently unavailable. But there is a way to become a paid subscriber, and it’s easy! Here’s how:
For Desktop Users:
Go to the Website
Open a web browser (Chrome, Safari, Firefox—whichever you use).
Head to weissmann.substack.com.
Sign In
Click “Sign In” at the top-right.
Enter your email and check your inbox for the sign-in link.
Click the link in your email to log in.
Upgrade Your Subscription
Once signed in, look for the “Subscribe” or “Upgrade” button.
Select your plan (monthly or annual).
Enter payment details and confirm.
For Mobile Users (iPhone or Android):
Use a Web Browser (Not the Substack App)
Open Safari or Chrome on your phone.
Go to weissmann.substack.com.
Sign In
Tap the menu icon (three horizontal lines, usually).
Tap “Sign In”, enter your email, and check for the sign-in link.
Click the link in your email to log in.
Upgrade to Paid Subscription
Tap the menu again if needed.
Look for “Subscribe” or “Upgrade” and tap it.
Pick your plan, enter payment info, and confirm.
That’s it! Once you’re a paid subscriber, you’ll get full access to all Q&A responses and other exclusive content. And as always, I appreciate your support.
Andrew, regarding the Judge Boasberg saga: Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, and others are making outrageously and intentionally dishonest comments about the judge, and, sadly, I’ve got a hunch that millions of voters are inclined to believe them. Rebuttal messaging by quality and highly knowledgeable people like you, Lisa, Ruben, and others need to state in very clear terms that the judge is simply responding to a lawsuit and seeking to determine whether or not the law is being followed or violated. It is outrageous to say that the judge is supporting terrorism. It’s like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Trump and Bondi cannot be permitted to get away with this! We need clear, examples and analogies, perhaps a professional basketball or baseball analogy in which the authorities in those sports would grossly and inappropriately respond to a controversy.
Could the outcome be that the Supreme Court maintains their authority but gives Trump carte blanche over every Court beneath them. Sounds bizarre but looking likely