‘Protected speech’: Judge prevents War Department from punishing Mark Kelly for ‘seditious’ comments
Hegseth has proposed review of senator’s retirement rank and pay
A judge at the entry level of the federal court system has prevented, for now, the Department of War from punishing Mark Kelly, a Democrat senator, for his “seditious” comments directed to the U.S. military.
The judge, Richard Leon, granted Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction against War Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Kelly’s claim is that Hegseth is trying to punish him for “political speech.”
In fact, Kelly was part of a group of six Democrats in Congress who joined to make a video to members of the U.S. military insisting that they can “refuse illegal orders.”
They identified none, but the suggestion was that orders from President Donald Trump were, in fact, illegal.
The other members of the video production unit were ex-members of various governmental agencies, but Kelly was a former Navy captain, and as such, remained under the jurisdiction of the military code of justice for members of the military.
A report from NPR said Hegseth has described Kelly’s comments as “seditious” and the six video makers repeatedly have been labeled the “Seditious six.”
Hegseth then had said there would be a review of Kelly’s retirement grade, which could result in a reduction in rank and accompanying cut in military retirement pay.
The ruling blocks the Pentagon from taking any action, but the Trump administration has seen dozens of such rulings from district judges, and frequently is able to move forward with its plans after an appellate court reverses the lower court.
Kelly, in court, claimed, “The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech. That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.”
The video was released on social media and sought to undermine the confidence members of the U.S. military would have in the command structure by talking about “illegal orders” without, of course, identifying any.
