A federal judge has ruled that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attempts to punish Senator Mark Kelly over a video urging US service members to refuse illegal orders are unconstitutional and retaliatory. This decision comes just two days after a grand jury in Washington, DC, declined to approve charges against Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers for the same video, which warned of threats to the Constitution and implored service members to refuse illegal orders.
The ruling by Senior US District Judge Richard Leon highlights a significant obstacle to President Donald Trump's aides' efforts to use government power to punish Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut. Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, criticized Hegseth's actions as a violation of Kelly's First Amendment rights, stating that Kelly's reprimand for exercising his right to free speech on matters of public concern was an impermissible form of government retaliation.
The Pentagon's targeting of Kelly's 'unquestionably protected speech' entitled to special protection under the law is a key point of contention. The Justice Department is expected to appeal the decision, arguing that Hegseth's actions are unreviewable by federal courts or should be given significant deference by judges. Kelly, however, has expressed determination to fight harder, emphasizing the importance of the issue.
The case began when Hegseth announced the Pentagon's pursuit of administrative action against Kelly, including reducing his rank and issuing a letter of censure. This followed a video posted in November by Kelly and five other Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds, urging service members not to obey unlawful orders. Trump and Hegseth have publicly criticized the video, with Trump suggesting seditious behavior.
The video's release coincided with questions about the legality of military strikes and the deployment of federalized state National Guard members to Democratic-led cities. Leon's ruling underscores the tension between government retaliation and the First Amendment rights of public figures, inviting further discussion on the limits of government power in the context of free speech and political dissent.
