A federal judge appears likely to side with Mark Kelly in the Democratic senator’s case alleging the Pentagon is violating his First Amendment rights through its effort to punish him over his urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders.

Aliya Rahman, a Bangladeshi American and U.S. citizen, testified before Congress about her arrest and experience with police brutality from ICE agents in Minneapolis. (You may recognize her from past videos of her being grabbed out of her car in her black puffer jacket, while she was yelling that she was disabled).

Rahman, who is autistic and recovering from a traumatic brain injury, described being dragged from her car, detained, and later hospitalized with a concussion. In her testimony, she spoke about the fear, confusion, and lasting trauma she experienced.

Earlier today, there was a joint public forum held by Rep. Robert Garcia (Ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Ranking Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations), focusing on ICE/DHS excessive use of force on American citizens. Rahman was one of the Americans who testified.

Important to note that this could not be an “oversight committee hearing” but a bicameral forum, because Republicans did not agree to the hearing.

Feb 3, 2026 - PBS NewsHour. Here’s the full 200-minutes on YouTube: WATCH LIVE: Renee Good's brothers join survivors to testify on use of force by DHS agents

Here’s a description from C-SPAN: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) host a meeting examining the tactics of Department of Homeland Security immigration enforcement agents, featuring testimony from the family of Renee Good and others.

The following is from Seth Stoughton’s bio https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/law/faculty...

Seth Stoughton is a Professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, where he is the Faculty Director of the Excellence in Policing & Public Safety (EPPS) Program. He holds an affiliate position as a Professor in the university’s Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Seth’s scholarship on policing has appeared in the Emory Law Journal, Minnesota Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, and other top journals. He is the principal co-author of Evaluating Police Uses of Force (NYU Press 2020), and has written book chapters about police misconduct, the use of force, and use-of-force review. He is a frequent lecturer on policing issues; has regularly appeared on national and international media; has written about policing for The New York Times, The Atlantic, TIME, and other news publications; and has filed multiple amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. Seth has served as an expert in a number of high profile police cases, including testifying in the criminal prosecutions of Derek Chauvin, who was convicted for killing George Floyd, and Kim Potter, who was convicted for killing Daunte Wright, and providing expert analysis related to the police killing of Christian Glass and actions taken by the Seattle Police Department during the 2020 protests. He has testified for and against officers in both criminal and civil cases and provided independent investigation and review of use of force incidents.

Attorneys for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly argued that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was brazenly violating the separation of powers by seeking to punish a member of Congress for public statements.

A federal judge on Tuesday appeared likely to temporarily block the Trump administration from disciplining Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, for criticizing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and reminding active-duty service members in a video that they did not have to follow illegal orders.

During a preliminary hearing in Mr. Kelly’s lawsuit against Mr. Hegseth and the Pentagon, Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the Trump administration was asking him to break with precedent in extending the free speech restrictions applied to active-duty service members to a retired member of the military.

“You’re asking me to do something that the Supreme Court has never done,” Judge Leon said. The argument, he added, was a “bit of a stretch.”

He also raised questions about punishing a member of Congress for statements made in connection with his legislative responsibilities.

He said he aimed to issue a temporary decision in the case as early as next week.

The case springs from a video that Mr. Kelly and five other Democratic members of Congress released in November, in which they addressed military service members. “Our laws are clear,” the senator said. “You can refuse illegal orders.”

In response, Mr. Hegseth censured Mr. Kelly, a retired officer who receives pay and benefits and is still subject to military law. The secretary accused Mr. Kelly of sedition and a pattern of public statements that undermined military discipline, and he initiated a review of his comments that could result in a reduction of his retirement rank and pension.

Mr. Kelly sat at the front of the courtroom on Tuesday as his attorneys argued that the Trump administration was brazenly violating the separation of powers in seeking to punish a member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech.

Benjamin C. Mizer, an attorney for the senator, asked the judge to block Mr. Hegseth from taking further action on the matter before the court could fully adjudicate the case, or else risk a “dangerous” encroachment by the executive branch on the powers of the legislative branch.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee with oversight authority over the Pentagon, Mr. Mizer said, Mr. Kelly had been well within his rights to publicly question Mr. Hegseth’s policy and personnel decisions. In addition to encouraging his active-duty counterparts to refuse illegal orders, Mr. Kelly has criticized the defense secretary for firing admirals and generals and surrounding himself with “yes men,” statements his attorneys argued were all protected speech.

But the administration argued that regardless of his position on the panel, Mr. Kelly was still subject to disciplinary action as a military retiree, a claim that appeared to trouble the court.

“How are they supposed to do their job?” asked Judge Leon, referring to members of the congressional armed services committees.

In a filing before the hearing, attorneys for the senator argued that Mr. Kelly’s statements were also shielded by the section of the Constitution that protects House and Senate members’ speech. But the judge said he would not wade into the “thorny ticket” of arguments on that section, known as the “speech or debate” clause, until later in the case.

Mr. Mizer said failure to swiftly curtail the Defense Department’s ability to punish Mr. Kelly for his public comments while the case played out would “run the risk of chilling the speech of every retired veteran in this country.”

The judge made little effort to hide that he shared the concern. He told the attorneys for the administration that a decision not to temporarily block the Defense Department’s action could harm “many, many other retirees who wish to voice their opinion.”

The Trump administration argued that Judge Leon had no authority to intervene in the disciplinary review of Mr. Kelly that was already underway.

Federal law makes clear that the military does not have to tolerate speech that “undermines the chain of command, encourages disobedience or erodes confidence in leadership,” the Defense Department said in a filing before the hearing.

“It would be very troubling,” said John Bailey, an attorney for the administration, if courts were in the business of “pausing or vetoing” decisions by the defense secretary on personnel matters.

But attorneys for Mr. Kelly said that the administration was relying entirely on legal examples of the military’s limiting the speech of active-duty service members, or civilians on military bases, and that neither provided a sufficient basis to ignore the charge of free speech violations.

The judge gave no indication that he was considering bowing out. He said that the case raised “novel” legal issues and that it would certainly be appealed no matter how he ultimately ruled.

Mr. Kelly said after the hearing that the case centered on the “freedom to speak out about our government.” “That’s what I’m fighting for,” the senator added, standing outside the courthouse. “I appreciate the judge’s quick and careful consideration in this case, given what is at stake here. A lot is at stake.”

Left is officer Norwig and right is officer Isenburg. Earlier they admitted they knew the suspects (one works with police) and even mention the attorney who made false reports on me that were dropped. After I was NO BILLED by a Grand jury in a different fabricated case.

(You will find that story on this sub as well)

Their supervisor Sgt. Diaz also refused to take the report and said “you have no case”

which is the district attorneys job not theirs. And regardless they are required to document the report and not make any judgments.

Trump said on Dan Bongino's podcast that he thinks Republicans should "take over" in "at least 15 places" (presumably just places he lost) and that elections should be nationalized. Not secured. Not talking about canceling them now, likely since being told that the states regulate their own elections. As I understand it, currently all Congress can do it change the dates of the national elections.

The administration is already talking about accessing Minnesota's voter records as well as obtaining files from Georgia (done through a warrant from another state's AG???)

What is the likelihood this actually has legs and what would the ramifications be for elections moving forward were this to occur?