Senator Kelly Sues Hegseth and Pentagon Over Censure, Claiming First Amendment Rights Were Violated
US Senator Mark Kelly has filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon, alleging that his censure by Hegseth constitutes an unlawful and unconstitutional attempt to stifle free speech. The lawsuit seeks an injunction blocking Hegseth's actions from taking place.
Kelly, along with several other lawmakers, participated in a video warning military personnel of their rights under the law. This came amid controversy surrounding alleged breaches of international law by the Trump administration over airstrikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
Hegseth had issued a letter censuring Kelly and threatened to demote him and reduce his pension if he were found guilty. The Pentagon is set to make this decision within weeks, according to the letter.
The lawsuit claims that Hegseth's actions are prohibited by the First Amendment as it prohibits government officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech. Since Kelly was speaking on matters of public policy when he released the video, the lawsuit argues that he is entitled to the same protection as any other citizen expressing their views.
This decision by Hegseth and the Pentagon has drawn a stark contrast with President Donald Trump's earlier response to similar actions by lawmakers. When Kelly and his colleagues released the video, Trump suggested that their actions could constitute sedition, punishable by death.
While Hegseth's censure may seem severe, it is less harsh than the punishment hinted at by Trump. The former president wrote on Truth Social that the lawmakers' words "cannot be allowed to stand" and called for "seditous behavior" punishable by death.
Kelly's lawsuit challenges this assertion, arguing that his right to free speech must not be infringed upon, regardless of how unpopular his views may be.
US Senator Mark Kelly has filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon, alleging that his censure by Hegseth constitutes an unlawful and unconstitutional attempt to stifle free speech. The lawsuit seeks an injunction blocking Hegseth's actions from taking place.
Kelly, along with several other lawmakers, participated in a video warning military personnel of their rights under the law. This came amid controversy surrounding alleged breaches of international law by the Trump administration over airstrikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
Hegseth had issued a letter censuring Kelly and threatened to demote him and reduce his pension if he were found guilty. The Pentagon is set to make this decision within weeks, according to the letter.
The lawsuit claims that Hegseth's actions are prohibited by the First Amendment as it prohibits government officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech. Since Kelly was speaking on matters of public policy when he released the video, the lawsuit argues that he is entitled to the same protection as any other citizen expressing their views.
This decision by Hegseth and the Pentagon has drawn a stark contrast with President Donald Trump's earlier response to similar actions by lawmakers. When Kelly and his colleagues released the video, Trump suggested that their actions could constitute sedition, punishable by death.
While Hegseth's censure may seem severe, it is less harsh than the punishment hinted at by Trump. The former president wrote on Truth Social that the lawmakers' words "cannot be allowed to stand" and called for "seditous behavior" punishable by death.
Kelly's lawsuit challenges this assertion, arguing that his right to free speech must not be infringed upon, regardless of how unpopular his views may be.
. Like, I get why he's upset - who wouldn't want to keep their free speech rights intact? But at the same time, I'm kinda curious to see how this all plays out in court 
.
. And can we talk about Hegseth's letter for a sec? Like, is it really necessary to threaten to demote someone over the airwaves? 
.
. Maybe Kelly just got tired of Hegseth trying to silence him and decided to take a stand 
. Either way, it's definitely going to be interesting to see what happens next 
. This is exactly what the First Amendment is for - to protect our rights as citizens to express ourselves freely, even if it's not popular 
. I'm all for Hegseth and the Pentagon trying to uphold some kind of accountability, but censure and potential demotion? That's a whole different story 
. Trump might've been harsh with his words, but at least he didn't threaten people's careers like that's gonna happen in this case 
. I'm curious to see how this all plays out - will the courts side with Kelly or is Hegseth just trying to assert some kinda power over lawmakers? 
first of all can you even believe that some dude at the Pentagon thought it was a good idea to threaten a senator with demotion and pension reduction just because he spoke out on something? 
that's not some serious threat, that's just him being a dramatic overreactor as per usual. and to think Kelly was worried about Hegseth's censure but Trump's reaction is the real scandal 
like what if we didn't have laws protecting that? wouldn't it be a total nightmare trying to express our opinions and not have them shut down? so yeah let's support Kelly on this one 
Mark Kelly's right to free speech is being tested, and it's scary how fast things can escalate. Remember those days when news was just about the weather and what's playing on TV? Now, it feels like we're living in a different world 
...
. The fact that Trump suggested sedition punishable by death is just wild, though... I mean who gets a death sentence for being outspoken? 
. I'm all for people being held accountable but not at the expense of our fundamental rights 
. Anyway, i'll def be keeping an eye on this lawsuit 
can't wait to see how it plays out! 
that someone as powerful as Pete Hegseth is getting sued over censuring a senator for speaking their mind. I mean, what's next? Are we gonna start paying our politicians if they express an opinion on Twitter? 
This whole thing just smells like another example of how out of touch the government is with regular people. And let's be real, who needs the Pentagon to decide whether or not someone can speak freely? That sounds super democratic 
here are some stats that got me thinking: