BY Rosemary
A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Pentagon from enforcing disciplinary action against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, ruling that the Defense Department’s attempt to censure the retired Navy captain over a political video likely violates his constitutional right to free speech.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Pentagon from implementing or enforcing a Jan. 5 censure issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth while Kelly’s lawsuit moves forward. Leon concluded that the government’s actions not only infringed upon Kelly’s First Amendment protections but also risked undermining the rights of millions of retired service members.
“To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” wrote Leon, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush. In dismissing the government’s argument that Kelly was attempting to place himself beyond the reach of military law, the judge added a pointed rebuke: “Horsefeathers!”
Kelly, who represents Arizona in the Senate and retired from the Navy as a captain, sued after Hegseth formally censured him for participating in a November video in which he and five other Democratic lawmakers urged members of the armed forces to uphold their oath to the Constitution and refuse unlawful orders. The 90-second video was first posted on social media by Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and also featured Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania. All six lawmakers have military or intelligence backgrounds.
Days after the video was posted, President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition in a social media post, suggesting the conduct was “punishable by DEATH.” The Justice Department subsequently examined the matter, but earlier this week a Washington grand jury declined to indict the lawmakers. Slotkin has said she was informed that prosecutors could seek a new indictment as soon as Friday.
The Pentagon launched an investigation into Kelly in late November, citing a federal statute that permits the defense secretary to recall retired service members to active duty for possible court-martial or other disciplinary proceedings. Hegseth has maintained that Kelly was singled out because, unlike the other lawmakers in the video, he formally retired from active duty and therefore remains subject to certain provisions of military law.
Hegseth described the censure as a procedural step that could lead to Kelly’s demotion in retirement rank and a corresponding reduction in retirement pay. Following Leon’s ruling, Hegseth signaled the administration would appeal. “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain,’” he wrote on social media, referring to Kelly by his retired rank.
In his order, Leon determined that Kelly is “likely to succeed on the merits” of his First Amendment claim and that he has demonstrated irreparable harm. The judge found that the balance of equities weighs decisively in Kelly’s favor, particularly given the broader implications for retired military personnel who engage in public debate.
Leon emphasized that Kelly’s speech—delivered in his capacity as an elected official addressing constitutional principles—falls squarely within protected political expression. He suggested that the Defense Department should recognize the longstanding tradition of retired service members contributing their expertise to public discourse on military affairs.
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. He added that the Founding Fathers’ decision to enshrine free speech as the First Amendment underscores its central importance.
Kelly, in a video statement released after the ruling, said the dispute extends beyond his personal circumstances. He argued that the Pentagon’s actions were intended to send a message to retired veterans that they could face punishment for expressing dissenting views.
“This was about more than just me,” Kelly said. “They were sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out.” He cautioned that the legal battle may not be over, noting that the administration has signaled it will continue to contest the case.
Kelly’s attorneys have characterized the Pentagon’s actions as unprecedented, arguing that the government is asserting sweeping authority to discipline a retired officer and sitting senator for political speech disfavored by civilian leadership. In court filings, they described the position as “as alarming as it is unprecedented,” contending that it threatens both legislative independence and fundamental constitutional protections.
Government lawyers countered that the case centers on military personnel matters rather than civilian free speech rights. They argued that Kelly is attempting to use his elected office as a shield while invoking his retired military status when convenient, framing the dispute as one about maintaining discipline within the armed forces.
The lawsuit names Hegseth, the Defense Department, Navy Secretary John Phelan and the Navy as defendants. Judge Leon directed both sides to provide a status update within 30 days as the case proceeds.
The ruling represents a significant setback for the administration’s effort to use military disciplinary authority against a high-profile political critic. It also raises broader questions about the limits of executive power over retired service members who remain technically subject to certain aspects of military law while actively participating in civilian political life.
Original article
Comments