By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge indicated he would likely rule in favor of Senator Mark Kelly, who is suing the Pentagon for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights by attempting to punish him for encouraging service members to refuse illegal orders. The judge expressed skepticism regarding the Justice Department’s request to expand First Amendment loopholes for active-duty personnel to include retirees like Kelly, stating it was a significant legal stretch. This case is seen as part of a broader trend of federal judges thwarting the Trump administration’s efforts to retaliate against critics, with a decision expected by February 11. The Pentagon’s actions, which include reducing Kelly’s retirement rank and issuing a censure letter, are argued by Kelly’s legal team to infringe upon his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
Read the original article here
A federal judge seems to be leaning towards siding with Senator Mark Kelly in a significant legal challenge concerning the Pentagon’s attempts to penalize him. The core of this case revolves around a video where Kelly encouraged service members to refuse “illegal orders,” and the Pentagon’s subsequent efforts to punish him for this stance are now being scrutinized for potentially infringing upon his First Amendment rights. It appears that the judge, Senior US District Judge Richard Leon, expressed considerable skepticism during a recent hearing regarding the government’s argument.
The very notion that military personnel, even retirees like Senator Kelly, could face repercussions for advocating adherence to the law, specifically by refusing unlawful commands, has struck many as fundamentally flawed. The argument presented by the government essentially suggests an unprecedented expansion of restrictions on free speech for active-duty members to encompass those who have retired. Judge Leon explicitly voiced his discomfort with this proposition, noting that it would require him to take a step that higher courts have never previously endorsed, labeling it a “bit of a stretch.”
This situation highlights a broader concern about potential overreach by the executive branch in punishing perceived political adversaries. The legal challenge brought by Mark Kelly is seen by many as a direct confrontation with a pattern of using government power to stifle criticism. Previous instances have seen federal judges intervene to block actions against prominent figures, suggesting a growing judicial resistance to what some have characterized as a campaign of retribution.
At the heart of the matter is the principle that members of the armed forces are not only permitted but are, in fact, legally and ethically obligated to refuse orders that are unlawful. This policy is a fundamental aspect of military justice and training, designed to prevent the execution of illegal acts. Therefore, the Pentagon’s move to penalize Kelly for essentially reminding people of this established legal duty appears to be on shaky ground, leading many to believe his case was a “slam dunk” from the outset.
The judge’s apparent inclination to rule in Kelly’s favor stems from his questioning of the legal basis for punishing a retiree for encouraging compliance with the law. The government’s attempt to broadly interpret regulations designed for active-duty personnel to apply to retired individuals, particularly in the context of speech, seems to be the critical point of contention. Judge Leon indicated he would likely issue a ruling by February 11, which could significantly impede the Pentagon’s ability to penalize Kelly for his public statements.
The implications of this case extend beyond Senator Kelly, touching upon the broader landscape of free speech and accountability within the military. The idea that speaking out against potentially illegal orders could lead to punishment, even after service, raises serious questions about the rights of veterans and the boundaries of governmental authority. The judge’s apparent concern over expanding existing loopholes in First Amendment protections suggests a recognition of the potentially far-reaching consequences of such a decision.
Furthermore, the narrative surrounding this case appears to be one where the legal system is being asked to uphold fundamental constitutional principles against what some perceive as politically motivated actions. The judge’s hesitation to grant the government’s request to broaden restrictions on speech reflects a commitment to established legal precedent and the protection of civil liberties. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent for how speech related to military conduct is treated, particularly when it involves urging adherence to lawful orders.