WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Tuesday that he knows of no U.S. Supreme Court precedent to justify the Pentagon's censuring of a sitting U.S. senator who joined a videotaped plea for troops to resist unlawful orders from the Trump administration.
Sen. Mark Kelly had a front-row seat in a courtroom as his attorneys urged U.S. District Judge Richard Leon to block the Pentagon from punishing the Arizona Democrat, a retired U.S. Navy pilot. Leon didn't immediately rule from the bench on Kelly's claims that Pentagon officials violated his First Amendment free speech rights.
But the judge appeared to be skeptical of key arguments that a government attorney made in defense of Kelly's Jan. 5 censure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
“You're asking me to do something the Supreme Court has never done,” the judge told Justice Department attorney John Bailey. “Isn't that a bit of a stretch?”
Bailey argued that Congress decided that retired military service members are subject to the same Uniform Code of Military Justice that applies to active-duty troops.
“Retirees are part of the armed forces,” Bailey said. “They are not separated from the services.”
Benjamin Mizer, one of Kelly's lawyers, said they aren't aware of any ruling to support the notion that military retirees have “diminished speech rights.” And he argued that the First Amendment clearly protects Kelly's speech in this case.
“And any other approach would be to make new law,” Mizer added.
Leon, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, said the Pentagon's actions against Kelly could have a chilling effect on “many, many other retirees who wish to voice their opinion.”
The judge said he hopes to issue a ruling by next Wednesday. Kelly shook hands with two government attorneys after the hearing.
In November, Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers appeared on a video in which they urged troops to uphold the Constitution and not to follow unlawful military directives from the Trump administration.
Republican President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by DEATH” in a social media post days later. Hegseth said Kelly’s censure was “a necessary process step” to proceedings that could result in a demotion from the senator’s retired rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay.
The 90-second video was first posted on a social media account belonging to Sen. Elissa Slotkin. Reps. Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan also appeared in the video. All of the participants are veterans of the armed services or intelligence communities.
The Pentagon began investigating Kelly in late November, citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment.
Hegseth has said Kelly was the only one of the six lawmakers to be investigated because he is the only one who formally retired from the military and still falls under the Pentagon’s jurisdiction.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.,walks to speak to reporters outside of federal court in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.,speaks to reporters outside of federal court in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.,speaks to reporters outside of federal court in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A new Tennessee law has eased up on two longstanding financial hurdles for people with felony sentences who want their voting rights back, including a unique requirement among states that they must have fully paid their child support costs.
The Republican-supermajority Legislature approved the Democratic-sponsored change, which now lets people prove they have complied for the last year with child support orders, such as payment plans. The legislation also unties the payment of all court costs from voting rights restoration.
Advocates for years have sought various changes to Tennessee’s voting rights restoration system at the statehouse and in court. They say loosening these two rules marks the biggest rollback of restrictions to voting rights restoration in decades.
“This is huge and this is history,” said Keeda Haynes, senior attorney for the advocacy group Free Hearts led by formerly incarcerated women like her.
Most Republicans voted for it and Democrats supported it unanimously. The law took effect immediately upon Republican Gov. Bill Lee's signature last week.
“I think people are at a point where they want to just remove the barriers out of the way and allow people to be fully functional members of society,” said Democratic House Minority Leader Karen Camper, a bill sponsor.
In 2023 and early 2024, the state decided that the system did require going to court or showing proof of a pardon, not just a paperwork process, and that gun rights were required to restore the right to vote. Election officials said a court ruling made the changes necessary, though voting rights advocates said officials misinterpreted the order.
Last year, lawmakers untangled voting and gun rights. But voting rights advocates opposed some of the bill's other provisions, such as keeping the process in the courts, where costs can rack up if someone isn't ruled indigent.
Easing up on the financial requirements uncommonly split legislative Republicans. For instance, Senate Speaker Randy McNally voted against it, while House Speaker Cameron Sexton supported it, noting that people aren't getting forgiveness on making their payments.
“They need to continue paying that, and as long as they do, then there’s a possibility (to restore their voting rights)," Sexton said. "I really think that’s harder for people to argue against than maybe what something else was.”
Republican Rep. Johnny Garrett, who voted no, said in committee his vote would hinge on whether “there still can be an (child support) arrearage owed beyond that 12 months.”
For some, backed-up child support payments could reach hundreds or thousands of dollars, and court costs could be hundreds or thousands more, said Gicola Lane, Campaign Legal Center's Restore Your Vote community partnership senior manager.
Advocates credited their narrowed focus, omitting goals such as automatic restoration of rights, no longer tying restitution payments to voting rights, or offering a path for certain people to restore their right who are permanently disenfranchised, including those convicted of voter fraud or most murder charges.
The bill passed the Senate last year and the House this year.
Lawmakers gave the child support requirement final passage in 2006 within an overhaul bill that also created a voting rights restoration process outside of court. Critics said the child support rule penalized impoverished parents.
Democrats were then narrowly hanging onto legislative leadership in both chambers. Republicans held a slim Senate majority but GOP defectors voted for a Democratic speaker.
Last year marked the dismissal of a nearly five-year-old federal lawsuit over Tennessee’s voting-rights restoration system. Free Hearts and the Campaign Legal Center represented plaintiffs in the long-delayed case, which saw some election policy changes along the way.
Roughly 184,000 people have completed supervision for felonies and their offenses don't preclude them from restoring their voting rights, according to a plaintiffs expert’s 2023 estimate in the lawsuit. About one in 10 were estimated to have outstanding child support payments, and more than six in 10 owed court courts, restitution or both, the expert said.
Both Republican and Democratic-led states have eased the voting rights restoration process in recent years. Some states have added complexities.
In Florida, after voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 restoring the right to vote for people with felony convictions, the Republican-controlled Legislature watered that down by requiring payment of fines, fees and court costs.
Voting rights are automatically restored upon release in nearly half of states. In 15 others, it occurs after parole, probation or a similar period and sometimes requires paying outstanding court costs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Maine and Vermont, people with felonies keep their voting rights in prison, the NCSL says.
Ten other states including Tennessee require additional government action. Virginia ’s governor must intervene to restore voting rights of people convicted of felonies. In some states, including Tennessee, certain conviction types render someone ineligible.
However, Virginia lawmakers this year have passed a proposed state constitutional amendment to ask voters whether they want automatic voting rights restoration after someone is released from prison. Kentucky lawmakers have proposed a similar change for voters' consideration that would automatically restore voting rights after certain completed sentences, including probation.
FILE - The Tennessee Capitol is seen, Jan. 22, 2024, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV, File)
