Author: Becky Haugen

Pending Legal Action: USPHS and NOAA Retirees Left Without Pay During Government Shutdown

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Pending Legal Action: USPHS and NOAA Retirees Left Without Pay During Government Shutdown

Washington, D.C. — October 15, 2025

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is examining the legal basis for a class action lawsuit on behalf of retired officers and annuitants of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who may not receive their retirement pay during the ongoing federal government shutdown.

While most uniformed service retirees—including those from the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and the Coast Guard—will continue to receive their earned retirement benefits through the Military Retirement Fund (“MRF”), USPHS and NOAA retirees are excluded from that system. Their payments are instead drawn from agency-specific discretionary appropriations, which halt when Congress fails to pass a continuing resolution or budget.

This funding disparity leaves USPHS and NOAA retirees vulnerable to the political process, despite their equal standing as uniformed service members under federal law (10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4)). The claims would potentially be subject to review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and would challenge this inequity and seek both immediate restoration of withheld pay. and a declaratory judgment establishing that these retirees’ benefits are mandatory entitlements protected from budgetary suspension.

“No retiree should lose pay simply because their service fell under a different department seal,” said David P. Sheldon, founding attorney. “These men and women served under the flag of the United States just like their DoD and Coast Guard counterparts—and the government’s inaction has real human consequences.”

Who Is Affected

  • Included: Retirees and annuitants of the USPHS and NOAA Commissioned Corps who did not receive their scheduled retirement or survivor payments during the shutdown period.
  • Not Included: Retirees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard, whose payments are statutorily protected through the MRF.
  • Potential Expansion: Federal civilian retirees may be affected indirectly but are not part of this pending action.

Legal Recourse for Affected Retirees

Eligible retirees may pursue the following avenues of relief:

  1. Class Participation:
    Retirees who have experienced nonpayment of retirement benefits may seek inclusion in the pending class action once filed. The case will argue that USPHS and NOAA retirement pay statutes (42 U.S.C. § 212, § 213a; 33 U.S.C. § 853) are money-mandating under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), giving the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to order payment and interest.
  2. Administrative Inquiry:
    Retirees should retain all correspondence and payment statements from the Coast Guard Pay & Personnel Center (PPC), which processes payments for USPHS and NOAA retirees. Written confirmation of nonpayment or delayed disbursement strengthens future claims.
  3. Individual Filing (Optional):
    Some retirees may choose to file an individual claim or mandamus petition if they experience unique financial hardship or are excluded from the class definition. Such cases may also assert violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Equal Protection principles under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  4. Legislative Advocacy:
    In parallel, affected retirees may contact congressional representatives to urge the adoption of a statutory parity amendment—similar to the FY 2021 NDAA inclusion of the Coast Guard in the MRF—that would permanently protect retirement pay for USPHS and NOAA retirees.

Legal Background

The Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits the government from obligating funds not yet appropriated. However, mandatory entitlements such as Social Security and MRF-based military pensions continue during shutdowns because Congress has permanently appropriated those funds.
USPHS and NOAA retirees fall into a legal gap: their authorizing statutes require that pay “shall be paid,” but Congress never created a corresponding permanent appropriation. As a result, the agencies’ payment authority vanishes when appropriations lapse—despite statutory entitlement.

The forthcoming lawsuit will argue that “shall be paid” imposes a nondiscretionary duty, making retirement pay an obligation of the United States independent of annual funding. The government’s failure to pay, therefore, constitutes an unlawful withholding of compensation earned through federal service.

Statement from Counsel

“Congress has recognized eight uniformed services, not five branches and three exceptions,” said Annie Morgan, senior military defense counsel. “Parity must mean protection. If one uniformed retiree is paid during a shutdown, all should be.”

How to Get Involved

Retirees or survivors of the USPHS or NOAA Commissioned Corps who have missed or delayed payments due to the shutdown are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC at militarydefense.com for updates on the case and guidance on preserving their claims.

Disclaimer

This post is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The lawsuit described herein has not yet been filed. Individuals should seek personalized legal guidance regarding their eligibility and options.

 

Government Pushes Reconsideration in Airman’s Landmark Reversal- Defense Holds Ground

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Montana Air

Government Pushes Reconsideration in Airman’s Landmark Reversal — Defense Holds Ground

Just weeks after the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) issued a unanimous ruling overturning the wrongful conviction of Senior Airman whose life was derailed by withheld evidence, the government is attempting to roll back the decision.

On September 15, 2025, the CAAF found that prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding exculpatory evidence and destroying investigative files, ultimately denying SrA Bryce Roan a fair trial. That ruling restored his rank, pay, and dignity after years of injustice.

Now, the Air Force Government Trial and Appellate Division has filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the Court overlooked evidence and that the exoneration was premature.

The Government’s Position

In its October 8 reply, the government contends that SrA Roan “failed to show” any admissible proof that dimethylhexylamine (DMHA), the ingredient found in the pre-workout powder central to the case, could cause a false positive for cocaine. The brief dismisses the cumulative evidence recognized by the Court, claiming the “missing link” in Roan’s defense is scientific proof and that no witness could testify that DMHA could trigger such a false reading.

The government further asserts that because Roan’s roommate, SSgt N.W., did not use the DMHA defense after being granted a continuance in his own trial, the theory lacks credibility, arguing that if the defense were viable, it would have been used then.

The Defense Fires Back

In a powerful response filed October 6, the defense team led by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan, rejected the government’s attempt to relitigate settled law.  She argued that the request for reconsideration was nothing more than “a refusal to accept accountability,” emphasizing that Supreme Court precedent requires courts to assess all suppressed evidence cumulatively, not isolate it piecemeal.

“Reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple,” the defense brief stated. “It is an audacious attempt to recast accountability as error.”

The defense brief reaffirms that the withheld evidence, including destroyed files, undisclosed interviews, and internal Air Force communications that stripped Roan of the ability to raise an innocent ingestion defense. The filing underscores that it was government misconduct, not defense deficiency, that created the evidentiary gap the government claims was overlooked.

“Having failed to disclose, failed to preserve, and failed to confront its obligations,” wrote, “the Government now faults this Court for holding it accountable.”

What’s Next

With both sides’ briefs now before the CAAF, the nation’s highest military court will determine whether to grant reconsideration or stand by its unanimous ruling. For SrA Roan, the case is about more than legal precedent, it’s about reclaiming a life and career nearly lost to bureaucratic indifference and prosecutorial overreach.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a leading firm representing service members, federal employees, and veterans before military and federal courts. The firm is nationally recognized for its work defending those whose rights and careers have been jeopardized by unjust actions within the military justice system.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

When the System Reboots But Justice Doesn’t

Posted on by Becky Haugen

MSPB

The Merit Systems Protection Board is back—at least on paper.

Last week, the Senate confirmed James Woodruff, President Trump’s nominee, to the federal board that hears grievances from government employees. His appointment restores a quorum to an agency that has sat largely paralyzed for months after the administration dismissed its last Democratic-appointed member.

To the casual observer, this looks like progress: the board can now issue decisions again. But as Politico’s Hassan Ali Kanu reported, the change could actually make it harder for federal employees  and by extension, uniformed service members in comparable administrative processes to get meaningful relief.

For nearly a year, federal workers who were fired or disciplined successfully argued in court that any complaint filed with the MSPB would be “futile.” Judges agreed, allowing employees to bypass a broken system and seek justice directly in federal court. Now, with a quorum technically restored, that legal opening is closing—even though the board remains buried under a fast-growing backlog of tens of thousands of appeals.

The symbolism is powerful: the White House can claim the machinery of due process has been repaired. But substance tells another story. A board stacked with political appointees and crippled by delay is not an engine of fairness, it’s a holding pen for accountability.

Federal workers, and the service members who rely on parallel review systems such as the Boards for Correction of Military Records, deserve a process that is independent, timely, and transparent. Restoring seats without restoring trust merely replaces paralysis with pretense.

Until Congress imposes statutory deadlines for decisions, guarantees the right to court review when agencies stall, and ensures balanced representation on these boards, justice for the federal workforce will remain bureaucratized, not delivered.

Denial of Benefits and Delayed Justice for Federal Personnel and Military Service Members

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Rainbow pride flag

Federal and Military Employees Face Challenges to Retirement Benefits and Constitutional Rights Amid Policy Shifts

In August 2025, the U.S. Air Force rescinded previously approved Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) benefits for service members with 15 to 18 years of service. While this action has largely affected transgender personnel, it signals broader administrative discretion that could impact retirement and benefits decisions for a wider group of federal and military employees.

Executive Order 14183, signed in January 2025, reinstated restrictions on transgender military service, citing unit cohesion and readiness concerns. The Supreme Court allowed enforcement of this order in May 2025, and the Department of Defense has since issued guidance to proceed with separations. These shifts, coupled with administrative backlogs caused by the government shutdown, have created uncertainty for many service members who rely on timely processing of retirement and benefits applications.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

The rescission of benefits raises serious constitutional concerns. Under the Equal Protection Clause, policies that discriminate based on characteristics such as gender identity or sexual orientation must meet strict scrutiny. Additionally, abrupt denial of earned benefits implicates the Due Process Clause, as service members and federal employees may be deprived of property without meaningful opportunity for review.

Legal challenges are ongoing, including lawsuits such as Talbott v. USA, where advocacy organizations are contesting the constitutionality of the transgender service restrictions. These cases may set important precedents affecting the broader federal workforce.

Impact on the Broader LGBTQ+ Workforce

While policy changes have specifically targeted transgender service members, gay, bisexual, and other LGBTQ+ military and federal employees are also affected. Administrative delays, reduced government operations, and shifting policy interpretations create uncertainty for all personnel relying on earned benefits and retirement eligibility. Even those not directly targeted may face obstacles in planning their careers, navigating appeals, or securing timely access to benefits. This environment underscores the importance of strong legal protections and oversight to ensure that all LGBTQ+ service members and federal employees receive fair treatment and due process.

Government Shutdown Complications

The ongoing government shutdown further complicates the situation. Limited operations in military and federal offices slow the processing of appeals, retirement applications, and administrative remedies. Federal courts, operating with reduced staffing, are also experiencing delays, slowing the adjudication of constitutional and administrative claims. This combination of policy reversals and shutdown-related delays increases the risk that personnel may be separated or denied benefits before their claims can be fully reviewed.

Legal Remedies and Next Steps

Affected service members and federal employees may pursue several avenues:

  1. Administrative Appeals: Filing appeals within the Department of Defense or relevant federal agency.
  2. Judicial Review: Seeking federal court adjudication on constitutional and administrative law grounds.
  3. Class Action Litigation: Addressing systemic effects when multiple personnel are impacted.

Engaging experienced counsel specializing in military and federal employment law is essential to protect rights and benefits.

Recent News Articles and Resources

Disclaimer:
This update is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Service members and federal employees should consult an attorney specializing in military or federal employment law for guidance.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., provides expert legal representation to military service members and federal employees facing legal challenges. Specializing in military justice, veterans’ rights, and federal employment law, the firm is committed to protecting the rights, benefits, and careers of those who serve our nation.

 

 

FOIA Under Fire: Why Military Law and Justice Depend on Open Records

Posted on by Becky Haugen

DOJ Bond FOIA

For service members facing courts-martial, medical retirement disputes, or appeals before military boards, one tool often makes the difference between fairness and frustration: the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA allows attorneys to uncover critical records, everything from investigation files to medical reports, that service members need to defend their honor, protect their benefits, and ensure justice.

But a recent move by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to demand a $50,000 bond in a FOIA case has sent shockwaves through the legal community. If upheld, it could create dangerous barriers for military members and veterans who rely on FOIA for access to the truth.

Why FOIA Matters in Military Justice

  • Uncovering Evidence – FOIA requests often reveal investigative files, disciplinary records, and administrative correspondence that can prove whether a service member was treated fairly.
  • Medical and Retirement Benefits – In MEB/PEB cases, FOIA ensures access to medical evaluations and disability determinations that directly impact a service member’s career and retirement benefits.
  • Accountability – FOIA is one of the few tools that allows service members and their advocates to challenge unlawful orders, expose command misconduct, or review board proceedings.

Without FOIA, attorneys and their clients would be fighting blindly against the weight of the military bureaucracy.

The DOJ’s Bond Request: A Dangerous Precedent

The DOJ recently asked a Washington, D.C., federal judge to require a nonprofit transparency group and journalist Brian Karem to post a $50,000 bond simply to expedite a FOIA lawsuit over Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents. If the group lost on appeal, that money would be forfeited.

For military clients, this precedent would be devastating:

  • Financial Barriers – Most service members cannot afford such sums.
  • Chilling Effect – Attorneys may be forced to advise against pursuing critical FOIA litigation due to risk.
  • Erosion of Rights – The executive branch would effectively gatekeep access to records, undermining both FOIA and judicial independence.

Why This Undermines Judicial Independence

Federal courts, not the executive branch, are entrusted to decide whether cases move forward. Forcing litigants to post large bonds because of a political directive threatens:

  • Separation of Powers – Courts must remain independent arbiters, not enforcers of executive preferences.
  • Equal Access – Justice should not depend on a litigant’s financial means.
  • Transparency – A democracy cannot function if government records are shielded from scrutiny by artificial financial barriers.

Why This Matters for Military Members and Veterans

If this approach spreads, service members could find themselves unable to access their own service records when fighting unjust actions by the military. From challenging unlawful orders to securing disability ratings, FOIA is the backbone of transparency in military law.

Blocking FOIA through financial gatekeeping would not only harm individuals, it would weaken trust in the justice system itself.

Resources and References

Polygraphs in the War Department: A Dangerous Step for Federal and Military Employees

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Polygraphing Federal Workers and Service Member

When news breaks that senior leadership wants to clamp down on “leaks” by ordering random polygraph tests for Department of Defense employees and service members, it may sound like a tough approach to discipline. But beneath the surface, it reveals something far more troubling.

Imagine being a civilian analyst who has worked for years in the Pentagon, or a young service member stationed overseas. You’ve given your career, your loyalty, and your reputation to your job. Then one day, you’re summoned to take a lie detector test, not because you’re accused of wrongdoing, but simply because the leadership wants to make an example out of “someone.” Suddenly, your job, your career, and even your honor are tied to a machine that courts themselves hesitate to trust.

Polygraphs are not foolproof. They measure stress, not truth. And stress runs high when your livelihood is on the line. A nervous breath, a racing pulse, or even the memory of a past mistake can trigger results that look suspicious. For federal employees, this creates the risk of being disciplined, demoted, or fired without real evidence. For military service members, the consequences can be even harsher, career-ending investigations, loss of retirement, or even court-martial referrals.

What’s more concerning is the power dynamic at play. In the military and defense world, careers depend heavily on trust from the chain of command. By inserting random polygraphs into that environment, leadership turns trust into fear. It chills communication, discourages whistleblowers, and silences those who might otherwise raise legitimate concerns. The War Department becomes less about defending the nation and more about policing its own employees under a cloud of suspicion.

This is not just a matter of workplace policy, it’s a legal landmine. Federal workers are protected by the Constitution and statutes like the Civil Service Reform Act and Privacy Act. Military members are entitled to due process under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Random polygraph sweeps brush aside those safeguards. They flip the burden of proof, turning ordinary employees into suspects. They stretch constitutional limits on privacy and due process. And they invite abuse, where the results of a questionable test could be used to target individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with leaks.

At its core, this push for polygraphs is less about national security and more about power. It suggests that the War Department’s leadership can bypass established protections whenever it feels threatened by criticism or exposure. But history shows that when leaders demand tools of intimidation instead of lawful process, the rights of ordinary employees and service members erode first, and restoring them is never easy.

For those who serve, whether in uniform or in civilian roles, the warning is clear: unchecked demands for polygraph testing are not a show of strength, but a sign of weakness in leadership. They risk transforming the workplace into a climate of fear, where truth becomes secondary to control. And that is a dangerous path for a department tasked with defending a free nation.

 

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Federal employees and service members facing adverse action should seek representation from a qualified attorney.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., defends service members, federal employees, and civilian contractors in cases involving adverse actions, investigations, and injustices in the military and federal workplace. With decades of experience, our firm is dedicated to protecting the rights of those who serve. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

A Veteran’s Fight for Justice Continues in Federal Court Against the U.S. Navy

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Veteran’s Fight for Justice Continues in Federal Court Against the U.S. Navy

A decorated U.S. Navy veteran has taken his fight for justice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging what he contends is an unfair and unlawful disability rating that stripped him of the retirement benefits he earned through combat service. Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the case asks the appellate court to correct a series of errors by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR).

A Story of Service and Sacrifice

This veteran served honorably as a Petty Officer First Class in covert reconnaissance squadrons, flying dozens of combat missions across Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans. His role placed him in direct danger, tracking enemy positions, calling in strikes, and witnessing devastation at close range.

One mission in particular, an air campaign that resulted in over 180 enemy combatants killed in action, left lasting scars. In the months that followed, he developed the hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): intrusive memories, nightmares, anxiety, and depression. By 2007, Navy doctors determined his PTSD was permanent, ending his career as a flight technician.

Despite his clear diagnosis, the Navy awarded him only a 10% disability rating, far below the 50% rating mandated by federal law (VASRD § 4.129) for service-related PTSD severe enough to cause separation from service. That rating meant severance pay instead of medical retirement, a decision that has denied him lifetime benefits for over 15 years.

A Long Legal Battle

The veteran sought relief through the PDBR, which in 2022 admitted his PTSD was service-connected and warranted a retroactive 50% rating. Yet the Board simultaneously cut his rating back to 10% without ever conducting a follow-up medical examination, contradicting both statute and regulation.

Federal district court upheld the Navy’s decision earlier this year, prompting the veteran to appeal. His case now rests with the D.C. Circuit, where his attorneys argue that the Navy’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and that the proper remedy is full medical retirement.

“This case is about more than numbers on a chart,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel. “It is about honoring the sacrifices of those who served in combat, ensuring that the law is applied fairly, and correcting years of injustice.”

Broader Implications

The outcome of this appeal could have lasting implications for thousands of veterans who were medically separated with low ratings between 2001 and 2009, a period Congress has acknowledged was plagued by systematic under-rating of combat-related disabilities.

For this veteran, the case is deeply personal. “After everything he gave in service to his country, he deserves the benefits promised under law,” Thayer added.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every case is unique, and results depend on the facts and circumstances of each matter.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized boutique law firm representing service members, federal employees, and veterans in complex military and federal employment matters. With decades of combined experience, the firm advocates for those facing injustice in courts-martial, boards of inquiry, correction boards, security-clearance cases, and federal appeals.

Army Family Files Federal Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations After Unlawful Release of Records

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Privacy Act

A married Army couple has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Department of the Army unlawfully released sensitive personal information protected under federal law. At the heart of the case is a military police report that contained unredacted details about the family, including Social Security numbers, Department of Defense identification numbers, dates of birth, and the names of their minor children.

The couple contends that the release of this information, without their knowledge or consent, directly violated the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which prohibits government agencies from disclosing personal records contained within a “system of records” absent a written request or authorization. The law makes clear that any intentional or willful release of protected data that causes harm opens the door to civil liability.

Here, the unredacted report was transmitted to a third party during a private custody dispute. Not only was the disclosure made without any lawful basis, but the Army itself later conceded through its Installation Management Command that the report had been released in violation of federal law. The complaint alleges the release was willful and intentional, even occurring after the Army employee responsible received a system-generated warning about disseminating personally protected information.

Legal precedent strengthens the family’s claim. In Doe v. U.S. Department of Justice and Chambers v. U.S. Department of the Interior, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that unlawful disclosures causing adverse effects, such as financial costs or emotional distress, are actionable. The complaint cites these principles in establishing all four required elements of a Privacy Act damages claim:

  1. The police report was a record within a system of records.
  2. The Army improperly disclosed the record.
  3. The disclosure was willful and intentional.
  4. The plaintiffs suffered adverse effects, including more than $20,000 in legal fees and lasting emotional harm.

“This is not just a technical violation,” said their counsel, Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “When the Army released a document it was explicitly forbidden to share, it violated a fundamental promise of privacy and accountability. The consequences for this family were immediate and severe.”

The lawsuit seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief under the Privacy Act, sending a clear message: military families, like all Americans, are entitled to the full protections Congress enacted to keep their personal information secure.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or sharing this content does not create an attorney–client relationship.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier boutique law firm based in Washington, D.C., representing service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families nationwide. With decades of combined experience, the firm advocates for justice in military, administrative, and federal courts.

When the Military Orders Silence: The Hegseth Directive, Navy Reporting Guidance, and the First Amendment Risks

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Social Media Naval Branch

 

New Navy Guidance: Reporting Improper Social Media Use

On September 15, the Chief of Naval Operations released a memo instructing how to receive, refer, and track reports of “unprofessional personal social media use.” Navy Times The memo directs that reports be forwarded through the chain of command, with periodic status updates up to the CNO level, but states that the Chief of Naval Personnel is not to perform investigations unless the matter warrants accountability tied to unprofessional use. Navy Times

This formal process institutionalizes oversight and surveillance of Sailors’ online behavior. It underscores that social media posts are no longer purely personal acts: they are subject to command visibility and may trigger review or discipline.

The Navy Social Media Handbook also confirms that Sailors remain subject to the UCMJ at all times, including off-duty, and that “improper or inappropriate online behavior … may result in administrative or disciplinary action.” CSP Navy /navy.mil

Thus, the Navy is actively building procedural infrastructure to catch and escalate online speech potentially deemed unprofessional.

The “Hegseth Order” & Posts about Charlie Kirk

In parallel, top Defense leadership has signaled strong intent to punish service members for celebratory or mocking posts about the death of Charlie Kirk, a private citizen not holding public office. Reports suggest that commanders have suspended or removed personnel whose posts are under review. Navy Times

Because the target was not in government, service members’ comments about Kirk do not implicate contempt under UCMJ Article 88, which applies to certain high officials. And unless there is a whistleblower scenario or clear misconduct, these posts do not fall cleanly within protected communications.

What is left is a commander invoking good order and discipline as justification to suppress speech.

Constitutional & UCMJ Constraints

  1. Parker v. Levy and Military Speech Limits

The Supreme Court in Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), upheld that military speech can be restricted when necessary to prevent interference with duty, morale, or discipline. But that case also implies that restrictions must be tied to actual harm or disruption, not imagined ones.

  1. Lawfulness of Orders & Narrow Tailoring

Under military law (e.g. the Manual for Courts-Martial), a service member must obey a lawful order. If an order is overbroad, arbitrary, or lacks a proper military purpose, it may itself be invalid.

An order to silence commentary about a private citizen, without showing that it actually harms unit cohesion, is at risk of being invalidated.

  1. Risk of Political Suppression

When the content suppressed is political or ideological rather than directly linked to military function, the risk is that discipline becomes a form of political censorship. Courts have been wary of allowing the UCMJ to be used as a blunt instrument for silencing dissenting views that do not threaten mission performance (Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980)).

  1. Interaction with Navy Reporting Memo

The Navy’s new memo strengthens the command’s ability to monitor, log, and escalate social media concerns up the chain, potentially amplifying the reach of broad speech restrictions like the Hegseth directive.

Because reporting is formalized, a sailor’s post might be flagged even without direct local command knowledge, increasing the chance of review or discipline for commentary that might otherwise have remained unremarked.

That procedural structure amplifies the stakes: if the order is invalid, the entire reporting and investigative chain may be operating under unjustified authority.

  1. What Service Members Should Know
  • Not all speech is punishable, but suppression must be tied to real discipline or mission harm, not mere political disagreement.
  • Orders must be lawful. A directive to punish posts about a private citizen must bow to constitutional limits or risk being struck down.
  • Procedural rights matter. If accused, a service member is entitled to notice, to respond, and to challenge whether the order was lawful.
  • Representation is essential. Where broad or vague commands are used to silence dissent, legal counsel must push back, not merely accept “command authority” as absolute.

The interplay between the Hegseth directive, new Navy reporting protocols, and constitutional protection presents a serious danger: that normal political speech by service members could be censored under the guise of discipline.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we stand ready to defend service members whose voices are suppressed. If you are under threat of investigation or discipline for your online speech, we can challenge overreach and help protect both your career and your rights.

References & Resources

  • Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) – Full Text
  • Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) – Full Text
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. §§ 888, 892, 933, 934) – UCMJ Articles
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, ¶14 – 2024
  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034 – Cornell Law School