The freedom of speech in America just got two big confirmations from the judicial system, which is good news for everyone who cherishes their constitutional rights. Both of these were related, since they both stemmed from the same cause: the video that six members of Congress (all of whom had previously served either in the military or for the nation's intelligence services) released last year informing serving military members that it was their right and their duty to refuse to follow illegal orders. This is the indeed the law (in the Uniform Code of Military Justice), and all the members of Congress did was to reiterate what the law says.

For doing so, they have been vilified by everyone from Donald Trump on down, who immediately sicced his weaponized Department of Justice against the six, unleashing what Trump and his minions like to call "lawfare" against them. Investigations were opened. They were invited in to the Justice Department for voluntary interviews to discuss the matter (which, to their credit, they refused to do). And Pete Hegseth, the secretary of Defense, initiated a process to censure and downgrade the retirement benefits of one of them, Senator Mark Kelly.

This week, this effort crashed and burned in spectacular fashion. First, a federal grand jury refused to indict the six. Grand juries refusing to indict is a rare thing indeed, although it is becoming much more common these days, as average citizens push back against the weaponization of the nation's justice system against the president's political enemies. Grand jury proceedings are run by the prosecutors -- the defendant is not allowed to present any exculpatory evidence at all. It is supposed to confirm that there is indeed enough evidence of a crime to move forward to trial. The vote does not have to be unanimous, it just requires a majority of the jurors to vote to indict. But even with all the power slanted towards the prosecution, a grand jury just refused to indict the six because they weren't convinced any laws had been broken.

That is heartening, since all the "evidence" in this case is already public -- the video itself -- and when you watch it, all you see is members of Congress reminding service members of their duty under the law. They do not encourage anyone to break the law, they do not undermine legal orders, and they do not identify what orders may or may not be illegal. The video was released in the midst of the military's campaign of bombing boats in international waters who are not attacking America or the American military and who are not covered by any warrant or have any evidence against them of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The military just decides that they are "enemy combatants" (in a war that doesn't even exist) and they are summarily blown out of the water. Over 100 people have died so far in this "war." Tellingly, if there are any survivors of these airstrikes, they are either then bombed again or picked up and taken back to their country of origin -- which is bizarre, since if they were truly "enemy combatants," they would have been taken into custody as prisoners of war -- or if they were just garden-variety criminals, they would have been taken into custody and brought to America to face charges against them. None of this has happened to any of them.

This is by design, because if either of those things did happen then the people in question would get access to U.S. courts of law. They'd be able to present their case to the public and to the judges. And the Trump administration would have to attempt to legally justify their own actions. But if nobody is ever detained or taken into custody, then the courts never get involved. Which is the whole point, obviously.

The video was also released while U.S. soldiers had been ordered into American cities for no particular reason. Which could also have been germane to why the members of Congress decided to make and release their video.

In doing so, however, these members of Congress were doing nothing illegal at all. They were instead merely exercising the freedom of speech that is guaranteed to every American by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Donald Trump reacted to the video by saying on social media that it was: "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" and that: "Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL."

Trump, of course, has his own free speech right to say such things. But because he is president, he can order his goons to make good on his threats. Which they did. They couldn't, of course, bring charges of treason or seditious behavior (since that is absolutely ridiculous) but they could try to use a law banning efforts to "interfere" with "the loyalty, morale or discipline" of members of the military. That's what they just tried to do in front of a grand jury. But the grand jurors weren't buying it, and the indictment effort failed.

But it wasn't just the goons in the Justice Department who tried to please their Dear Leader, it was also Pete Hegseth over at the Pentagon. Hegseth placed a censure letter in Senator Mark Kelly's military record which said he had "undermined the chain of command... counseled disobedience" and displayed "conduct unbecoming an officer." Hegseth also initiated proceedings to reduce Kelly in rank and cut his military benefits (Kelly is retired from the military). This was all done out of pure spite. Which a federal judge just confirmed.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon (who was nominated to the bench by a Republican president) just barred Hegseth from enforcing the censure in any way and ordered a halt to the disciplinary proceedings that he had initiated. Here's just some of what he had to say in his ruling (emphasis in original):

"This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator [Mark] Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," [U.S. District Judge Richard J.] Leon wrote in a 29-page opinion.

. . .

Although active-duty members of the military can be punished for comments seen as insubordinate, those restrictions on speech have never been applied by the federal courts to retired service members such as Kelly, Leon said.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said the case had ramifications far beyond one senator -- millions of retired service members' free-speech rights could be chilled, he said.

"Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years," the judge wrote. "If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!"

This might not be the end of the lawfare attempt, however. Any normal administration would take such rebukes to heart -- from both a judge and a grand jury -- and decide to drop the matter entirely. But this isn't a normal administration, of course; it is instead a personality cult. And Trump got his feelings hurt, so they will doggedly continue to wage their lawfare against those who dared to do so. The same charges could be brought before a different grand jury, and (who knows?) they might actually get enough jurors to agree. Hegseth immediately announced that he would appeal the judge's ruling, and who knows what the current Supreme Court will rule -- they have an enormous constitutional blind spot when it comes to judging the actions of Donald Trump.

But for now, no matter what the final outcome, two blows for the freedom of speech were struck this week by different parts of the American judicial system. And that is definitely worth celebrating for all Americans who value their constitutional rights.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant