By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge ruled that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to punish Senator Mark Kelly for urging service members to refuse illegal orders were unconstitutionally retaliatory. This decision follows a grand jury’s prior refusal to approve charges against Kelly and other lawmakers who appeared in a video warning of “threats to our Constitution” and imploring service members to “refuse illegal orders.” The judge found Hegseth’s actions infringed upon Kelly’s First Amendment rights, deeming the Pentagon’s actions an impermissible form of government reprisal against protected speech.
Read the original article here
A federal judge has decisively ruled that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth engaged in unlawful retaliation against Senator Mark Kelly, specifically concerning a video where Kelly urged service members to refuse “illegal orders.” This judicial intervention signifies a significant setback for efforts to penalize Senator Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, for his participation in that video.
The judge’s ruling arrived just days after a grand jury in Washington, D.C., declined to approve charges that federal prosecutors had sought against Senator Kelly and several other Democratic lawmakers. These lawmakers had jointly released a video expressing concerns about “threats to our Constitution” emanating from within the nation and had strongly advised members of the military and intelligence community to resist any unlawful directives.
Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, penned a strong, 29-page decision detailing how Hegseth’s actions overstepped constitutional boundaries. The judge articulated that Hegseth was infringing upon Senator Kelly’s First Amendment rights, characterizing the Pentagon chief’s maneuvers as an impermissible form of governmental reprisal.
Judge Leon emphatically stated that while Senator Kelly might be an “unusually staunch individual,” this characteristic does not diminish his fundamental right to be free from retribution for exercising his First Amendment freedoms. The reprimand against Senator Kelly, the judge concluded, was a direct consequence of him exercising his constitutionally protected right to speak on matters of public importance.
The judge further elaborated that no court has previously extended the principles Hegseth was attempting to invoke to retired service members, let alone those serving in Congress and fulfilling oversight responsibilities over the military. He made it clear that his court would not be the first to set such a precedent, firmly pushing back against the notion that retired service members lose their constitutional protections.
In a colorful passage, the judge invoked Bob Dylan to underscore the clarity of the situation, suggesting that one doesn’t need a weatherman to discern the direction of the wind regarding the infringement of Senator Kelly’s rights. He dismissed the defense’s argument that Senator Kelly was seeking an exemption from military justice rules as “horsefeathers,” highlighting that the law as applied by Hegseth was being stretched beyond its intended scope.
The judge also offered a direct critique of Secretary Hegseth and his colleagues, suggesting they should instead appreciate and be grateful for the valuable contributions retired service members have made to public discourse on military affairs throughout the nation’s history. He posited that a greater appreciation for the wisdom and experience of these individuals would lead them to a deeper understanding of why freedom of speech was designated as the first amendment. This injunction, the judge hoped, would serve as a small step towards a course correction in the Department of Defense’s approach to such matters.
This judicial intervention highlights a critical tension between official authority and the fundamental right to free speech, particularly for those who have served the nation. The judge’s strong language suggests a significant concern that official power was being wielded not to uphold the law, but rather to punish dissent, a principle with far-reaching implications beyond this specific case.
The decision seems to echo sentiments that the current administration has repeatedly faced accusations of overstepping constitutional bounds. For many observers, the judge’s firm stance serves as a crucial affirmation that the legal system, at least in this instance, is capable of holding officials accountable for actions perceived as retaliatory or unconstitutional.
It’s also been noted that for someone like Hegseth, who has a documented history of controversial actions, a federal judge stepping in with such clear pronouncements is a significant development. The comparison of Hegseth to less accomplished or questionable figures, juxtaposed with Senator Kelly’s distinguished career as a combat pilot and astronaut, further emphasizes the perceived disparity and potential for personal animus influencing official decisions.
The ruling also comes at a time when discussions about accountability and the potential consequences for breaking the law are particularly salient. The sentiment that justice should be served and that unlawful actions should not go without repercussions appears to be a strong undercurrent in reactions to this development.
Ultimately, the judge’s ruling on Pete Hegseth’s actions concerning Senator Mark Kelly’s video sends a powerful message about the protection of First Amendment rights. It underscores that even individuals in positions of high authority are subject to constitutional limitations and that retaliatory measures against those exercising their rights are unacceptable and, as in this case, unlawful.