1 story credited to Law & Crime
Latest story Apr 16, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Law & Crime
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 1 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Law & Crime, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Law & Crime
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 1 | 1,806 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 1,320 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Criminal Justice1
100% of 1 stories · 19% across all outlets
- Defense/Military1
100% of 1 stories · 25% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption1
100% of 1 stories · 58% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 2 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 2 story–official pairs, from 1 story.
- Democrat50% · 1 pair
- Republican50% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 1 story.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Law & Crime’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 1 story.
- Good Look
- 0 (0%)
- Mixed
- 0 (0%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 1 (100%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from lawandcrime.com
2
Court filing says Hegseth claimed power to censor military retirees at will to 'punish' Sen. Mark Kelly, as Trump DOJ undoes actual 'sedition' convictions
President Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago club, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Palm Beach, Fla., as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listens (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). To complete the Trump administration's rewriting of Jan. 6, the result of the president's refusal to accept his 2020 election loss, the DOJ on Tuesday moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Just one day later, retired Navy captain and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly urged an appeals court to affirm that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unconstitutionally branded him a "sedition" artist for speaking out against Donald Trump. The 48-page brief at the D.C. Circuit recounted how Kelly and five other Democrats were branded the "Seditious Six" after appearing in a video in November condemning lethal boat strikes on alleged drug smugglers in international waters, with the astronaut telling service members, "you can refuse illegal orders." While Kelly said he directly referred to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Trump administration accused him of "undermin[ing] the chain of command," "counsel[ing] disobedience," and engaging in "conduct unbecoming an officer," warranting a reduction in his retirement rank and pay grade. Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox. Online, Trump shouted that Kelly, Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., engaged in "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Both Hegseth and the DOJ heard the message loud and clear. As the Defense Department moved its disciplinary campaign forward, reported U.S. attorney general hopeful and current Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro launched a criminal investigation into Kelly and the others, which ended in grand jury no-bills. After news of that failure, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked the disciplinary action in February, finding that the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against the sitting senator for "unquestionably protected speech," in violation of the First Amendment. The judge took a bird's-eye view of the situation and said that what Hegseth attempted against Kelly threatened the free speech rights of "millions" of military retirees. He pleaded with the defense secretary to course correct. "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," Leon remarked. Instead, Hegseth responded to the loss by falsely promising an immediate appeal and writing on X, "Sedition is sedition, 'Captain.'" Bold words on social media like these recently came back to bite Hegseth in Anthropic's First Amendment lawsuit, and Kelly is looking for the same outcome at the D.C. Circuit now that the government has, in fact, appealed. The senator took direct aim at the government's contention that Hegseth has the power to censor military retirees at will if he determines their speech has "counseled disobedience to lawful orders[.]" "On appeal, Defendants abandon most of their arguments from below—including justiciability, reviewability, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities—and leave the bulk of the district court's analysis unchallenged. And even as they pay lip service to retirees' speech rights, they continue to ignore ordinary First Amendment principles guarding against viewpoint discrimination and affording full protection to speech on matters of public concern," the brief said. "Instead they argue that Senator Kelly's speech was categorically 'unprotected' by the First Amendment based solely on an unprecedented, blanket rule: If the Secretary of Defense concludes that a military retiree has 'counseled disobedience to lawful orders and undermined military discipline,' the speech receives no constitutional protection under Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)." Rather, Hegseth is a "politically appointed civilian officer" who has no "veto power over public debate" and no authority to make this "unprecedented demand for total secretarial deference," the brief went on. Oral argument is set for May 7. Law&Crime earlier explained why the judges on the case were not the panel Hegseth was hoping for as he tries to reverse a resounding loss on a straightforward issue. When notorious Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio on Tuesday praised Pirro for moving to vacate the Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy convictions, he emphasized the recipients "won't need a pardon anymore" and that "[f]ull rights [were] restored," and that "full military benefits and back pay will be processed." The post Court filing says Hegseth claimed power to censor military retirees at will to 'punish' Sen. Mark Kelly, as Trump DOJ undoes actual 'sedition' convictions first appeared on Law & Crime.
Court filing says Hegseth claimed power to censor military retirees at will to 'punish' Sen. Mark Kelly, as Trump DOJ undoes actual 'sedition' convictions
President Donald Trump speaks at his Mar-a-Lago club, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Palm Beach, Fla., as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listens (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). To complete the Trump administration's rewriting of Jan. 6, the result of the president's refusal to accept his 2020 election loss, the DOJ on Tuesday moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Just one day later, retired Navy captain and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly urged an appeals court to affirm that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unconstitutionally branded him a "sedition" artist for speaking out against Donald Trump. The 48-page brief at the D.C. Circuit recounted how Kelly and five other Democrats were branded the "Seditious Six" after appearing in a video in November condemning lethal boat strikes on alleged drug smugglers in international waters, with the astronaut telling service members, "you can refuse illegal orders." While Kelly said he directly referred to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Trump administration accused him of "undermin[ing] the chain of command," "counsel[ing] disobedience," and engaging in "conduct unbecoming an officer," warranting a reduction in his retirement rank and pay grade. Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox. Online, Trump shouted that Kelly, Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., engaged in "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Both Hegseth and the DOJ heard the message loud and clear. As the Defense Department moved its disciplinary campaign forward, reported U.S. attorney general hopeful and current Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro launched a criminal investigation into Kelly and the others, which ended in grand jury no-bills. After news of that failure, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked the disciplinary action in February, finding that the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against the sitting senator for "unquestionably protected speech," in violation of the First Amendment. The judge took a bird's-eye view of the situation and said that what Hegseth attempted against Kelly threatened the free speech rights of "millions" of military retirees. He pleaded with the defense secretary to course correct. "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," Leon remarked. Instead, Hegseth responded to the loss by falsely promising an immediate appeal and writing on X, "Sedition is sedition, 'Captain.'" Bold words on social media like these recently came back to bite Hegseth in Anthropic's First Amendment lawsuit, and Kelly is looking for the same outcome at the D.C. Circuit now that the government has, in fact, appealed. The senator took direct aim at the government's contention that Hegseth has the power to censor military retirees at will if he determines their speech has "counseled disobedience to lawful orders[.]" "On appeal, Defendants abandon most of their arguments from below—including justiciability, reviewability, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities—and leave the bulk of the district court's analysis unchallenged. And even as they pay lip service to retirees' speech rights, they continue to ignore ordinary First Amendment principles guarding against viewpoint discrimination and affording full protection to speech on matters of public concern," the brief said. "Instead they argue that Senator Kelly's speech was categorically 'unprotected' by the First Amendment based solely on an unprecedented, blanket rule: If the Secretary of Defense concludes that a military retiree has 'counseled disobedience to lawful orders and undermined military discipline,' the speech receives no constitutional protection under Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)." Rather, Hegseth is a "politically appointed civilian officer" who has no "veto power over public debate" and no authority to make this "unprecedented demand for total secretarial deference," the brief went on. Oral argument is set for May 7. Law&Crime earlier explained why the judges on the case were not the panel Hegseth was hoping for as he tries to reverse a resounding loss on a straightforward issue. When notorious Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio on Tuesday praised Pirro for moving to vacate the Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy convictions, he emphasized the recipients "won't need a pardon anymore" and that "[f]ull rights [were] restored," and that "full military benefits and back pay will be processed." The post Court filing says Hegseth claimed power to censor military retirees at will to 'punish' Sen. Mark Kelly, as Trump DOJ undoes actual 'sedition' convictions first appeared on Law & Crime.