Free Newsletter
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) looks on at a press conference, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 18, 2025. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon/File Photo
US appeals court weighs Pentagon bid to punish Senator Mark Kelly
Reuters//May 8, 2026//
Summary:
- US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel questions government censure of Senator Kelly
- Senator Kelly alleges retaliation violating First Amendment rights
- Defense secretary seeks sanctions after Kelly’s public statements
A U.S. federal appeals court at a hearing on May 7 appeared skeptical that the Trump administration‘s could legally punish Democratic U.S. Senator Mark Kelly over public remarks he made urging service members to refuse unlawful orders.
Members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit expressed criticism of the government’s efforts to censure Kelly, a retired Navy captain and Arizona Democrat, over more than an hour of questioning.
“These are people who serve their country. Many of them put their lives on the line,” Circuit Judge Florence Pan told a Justice Department lawyer. “You’re saying that they have to give up their retired status in order to say something that is a textbook example — taught at West Point and the Naval Academy — that you can disobey illegal orders?”
Kelly spoke outside the courthouse in downtown Washington after the hearing. “This was a day in court not just for me, but for the First Amendment rights of millions of us,” Kelly said.
The Pentagon and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Kelly sued the Pentagon in January, alleging the move by Republican President Donald Trump’s administration to demote him and reduce his retirement pay was retaliatory and violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech.
The Pentagon appealed after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration in February from pursuing its campaign to censure Kelly.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to sanction Kelly, a former astronaut, after Kelly took part in a November 2025 video amid rising criticism of the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard in U.S. cities and authorization of lethal strikes on suspected Latin American drug smuggling boats. In the clip, Kelly stated: “Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders.”
The government’s lawyer told the appeals court on Thursday that the Constitution does not protect speech by military officers who urge disobedience to lawful orders, even if the officer is retired.
“It’s very clear that this is about a pattern and totality of conduct, not any one line or any one statement taken in isolation,” Justice Department lawyer John Bailey told the court.
Retired officers remain part of the armed forces, are subject to recall to active duty and can influence service members, the Trump administration argued.
Kelly’s lawyers countered that the Pentagon’s actions amounted to retaliation against protected political speech on matters of public concern.
“The punishments imposed on Senator Kelly are textbook retaliation against disfavored speech,” Kelly’s lawyer, Benjamin Mizer, argued to the appeals court. “The censure letter says on its face that it’s targeting the Senator for his public statements.”
(Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Nick Zieminski)
Related Articles
Related Content
Top Legal News
- US appeals court weighs Pentagon bid to punish Senator Mark Kelly
- Comey asks judge to cancel North Carolina hearing in Trump threat case
- Damages class may proceed over prison contractor’s opioid treatment policy
- Cyberstalking charges dropped against NC influencer
- US Supreme Court declines to pause order holding Apple in contempt in Epic Games lawsuit
- First Step Act credits require fresh review after end of Chevron
- AI errors in murder case lead to discipline for Georgia prosecutor
- Inventory searches support inevitable discovery of evidence
- Dog attack leaves woman catastrophically injured
- US Supreme Court lets Voting Rights Act ruling take effect ahead of schedule
- Ordinance requires compliance with all conservation subdivision purposes
Commentary
- When not to believe (your lyin’ eyes)
- Conduct a technology audit to improve law firm efficiency
- When the client brings ChatGPT to the consultation
- Content Marketing: Where law firms lose referrals and how to prevent it
- Your best people are not leaving for more money — they are leaving because you stopped paying attention
- Best at Work Insights: The choice we’re making about AI
- New life for the noncompete
- 2026: The year of tech, both heroes and villains
- Beyond burnout: The case for workplaces where people thrive
- The December question every leader should anticipate
- How do parent corporations deal with Workers’ Compensation?
- Best at Work Insights: Don’t Import 996: Why America Should Reject Overwork Culture
