Horsefeathers!

There's always a lot of debate about whether judges should be writing colorful opinions.  There's this opinion from yesterday referencing Orwell's 1984:

As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto “Ignorance is Strength,” this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not. The President’s House is a component of Independence National Historical Park that commemorates the site of the first official presidential residence and the people who lived there, including people enslaved by President George Washington. On January 22, 2026, the National Park Service (“NPS”) removed panels, displays, and video exhibits that referenced slavery and information about the individuals enslaved at the President’s House. 

The Hill reported about Judge Rufe's opinion here:

A federal judge ordered the National Park Service to restore exhibits about slaves who lived at the nation’s one-time executive mansion in Philadelphia, agreeing with the city that the Trump administration likely unlawfully removed the displays.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe invoked the dystopian novel “1984” as she blocked the Trump administration from changing or damaging the site, which is now an outdoor exhibition.

And then Lawfare covered Judge Leon's use of exclamation marks:

U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Leon loves exclamation marks. He uses a lot of them. Back in May, he opened his opinion striking down President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm of WilmerHale with the statement, “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!” The opinion also contained such memorable phrases as, “The causal chain contains at most two links, and it is certainly not highly attenuated!” and “All warrant summary judgment for WilmerHale!” 

Yesterday, Judge Leon struck again, this time in the civil case brought by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The 29-page order, which enjoins Hegseth from attempting to reduce the senator’s retirement pay for having made a video reminding servicemembers that they don’t have to follow illegal orders, contains no fewer than 14 sentences punctuated with an exclamation mark. Here they all are—some with a little context added, some nakedly unadorned:

• “Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!”
• “To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!”
• “Here, Senator Kelly's First Amendment claim presents a justiciable controversy!”
• “To say the least, those issues are in the wheelhouse of Article III courts, not military officials!”
• “Third, the outcome of the administrative process would, in all likelihood, be a fait accompli!”
• “Second, ‘the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration’ is severe!”
• “As applied to a sitting Member of Congress, the Parker rule has even less force!”
• “Indeed, if legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal by the Executive, our representative system of Government cannot function!”
• “Defendants respond that Senator Kelly is seeking to exempt himself from the rules of military justice that ‘Congress has expressly made applicable to retired servicemembers.’ Horsefeathers!”
• “The First Amendment ‘is a limitation on the power of Congress,’ . . ., not the other way around!”
• “There is no question that such actions would deter ‘a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff's position.’ . . . Indeed, they already have. Per an amicus brief submitted by forty-one retired officers, many veterans are today ‘declining’ to ‘participate in public debate on important and contested issues’ out of fear of ‘official reprisal.’ That is a troubling development in a free country!”
• “Defendants also argue that Senator Kelly has pied himself out of irreparable injury by asserting that he ‘intends to continue to speak on matters of public concern’ and ‘will not be silenced.’ Please!”
• “Put simply, Defendants' response is anemic!”
• “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”