'Horsefeathers!': Judge Steps in, Freezing Pentagon Move Against Sen. Kelly Over Military Speech

The Trump administration isn't faring all that well before D.C. District Court judges Thursday (or, perhaps, most days ending in "y"). Judge Boasberg issued a rather cutting order earlier in the day in the J.G.G. case (involving the removal of Venezuelans thought to be Tren de Aragua members pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act). Now, it's Judge Richard Leon's turn, this time involving the suit filed by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, and their respective departments following the move to censure Kelly over his involvement in the "Seditious Six" video.

Thursday afternoon, Leon entered an order granting Kelly’s motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby blocking the War Department from enforcing a formal Letter of Censure, a Retirement Grade Proceeding that could reduce Kelly’s rank and pay, and related threatened punitive actions tied to his public speech.

In the accompanying 29-page opinion, Leon concluded that Kelly is likely to succeed on his First Amendment retaliation claim, that irreparable harm is ongoing, and that the equities decisively favor injunctive relief. What's most remarkable, however, is the overwrought prose he used to explain his decision.

Take, for instance, Leon's introductory paragraphs:

United States Senator Mark Kelly, a retired naval officer, has been censured by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for voicing certain opinions on military actions and policy. In addition, he has been subjected to proceedings to possibly reduce his retirement rank and pay and threatened with criminal prosecution if he continues to speak out on these issues. Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces. Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!
Worse still, Secretary Hegseth contends that this Court is not yet competent to decide the issues in this case. He and his fellow Defendants argue that military personnel decisions are exempt from judicial review and, in any event, that Senator Kelly should first be required to go through the military appeals process so the military can have the first crack at adjudicating his First Amendment rights. I disagree. This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees. After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!

An exclamation point to end each of the first two paragraphs — 15 in total, peppered throughout the opinion. A reference to Bob Dylan. We've even got a "Horsefeathers!" later in the opinion:

Defendants respond that Senator Kelly is seeking to exempt himself from the rules of military justice that "Congress has expressly made applicable to retired servicemembers." Defs.' Opp'n at 1. Horsefeathers! While Congress has chosen to apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice to military retirees as well as active-duty servicemembers, see 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4), that choice has little bearing on the scope of First Amendment protections for retirees. The First Amendment "is a limitation on the power of Congress," NLRB v. Cath. Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490,499 (1979), not the other way around!

The Sick Media Clip on the Military and 'Illegal Orders' Folks Are Pointing to After NG Terrorist Attack

Now, I'm a fan of the exclamation point, but just as with swearing, liberal use of it can minimize its effectiveness. Next thing you know, we'll have judges adding emojis into their decisions! 🙃

In all seriousness, this is a significant case, as it tests the limits of military authority over retired servicemembers and reinforces the notion of heightened First Amendment protections for legislators.

Without checking, I could have predicted the administration would appeal this one, and SecWar has confirmed that's the plan.

This will be immediately appealed.

Sedition is sedition, “Captain.” https://t.co/dKrvhqy1a5
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) February 12, 2026

We will, of course, continue to follow the case and provide updates on it as warranted. But expect it to land in front of the D.C. Circuit sooner rather than later.

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges, dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.