Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., has decided to halt efforts to indict six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video urging U.S. service members not to follow orders they believe are illegal.
The decision by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro follows an unusual rebuke earlier this month, when a federal grand jury in Washington declined to return an indictment after prosecutors presented the case.
It remains unclear whether the Justice Department could seek to pursue charges in another federal district, one source cautioned. Another source said such a move was unlikely.
A spokesman for Pirro declined to comment. NBC News first reported that her office had decided to table the case in Washington.
Rare grand jury rejection
Grand jury refusals to indict are historically uncommon in federal court, where prosecutors typically secure charges in the vast majority of cases they present. However, such rejections have become somewhat more frequent in Washington and other districts as grand jurors express concern that certain cases may be politically motivated or intended to target perceived opponents of President Donald Trump, according to current and former Justice Department officials.
Prosecutors sought to charge the six Democrats under a rarely used federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2387, which carries a potential penalty of up to 10 years in prison for anyone who “advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military.”
After hearing the evidence, the grand jury unanimously declined to indict — an outcome that legal experts say is especially rare.
Lawmakers and attorneys push back
The lawmakers targeted in the investigation later publicly condemned the attempted prosecution and praised the grand jury’s decision.
Following public disclosure of the grand jury’s rejection, Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Democratic Rep. Jason Crow, sent a letter to Pirro warning her office of potential legal consequences if prosecutors continued to pursue the matter.
Lowell said he was placing Pirro and her office “on notice of the legal ramifications” of further action, according to people familiar with the letter.
Legal and political backdrop
The statute prosecutors attempted to use dates back decades and has rarely been invoked, particularly in cases involving speech by elected officials. Legal scholars have long warned that applying the law to political expression raises serious First Amendment concerns, especially when the speech urges military personnel to follow the law rather than disobey it.
The episode adds to mounting scrutiny of prosecutorial decisions in politically sensitive cases during Trump’s second term, as courts and juries increasingly serve as a check on efforts perceived as retaliatory or partisan.
