Category: Spotlight

Ninth Circuit Judges Question Legality of DoD’s Transgender Service Ban

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Rainbow pride flag

Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signaled deep concern this week over the Department of Defense’s sweeping transgender service ban—questioning both its constitutional footing and its breadth. The appeal, argued Monday, stems from the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14183 and subsequent DoD policy excluding individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or even “symptoms consistent with” it, from military service.

During oral argument, the panel pressed government counsel to explain why the policy appears to bar virtually all transgender persons from serving, despite years of successful open service under previous administrations. One judge noted that the ban “seems to cover anyone who has ever been identified as transgender, whether or not they are currently receiving treatment or have demonstrated any impairment.”

As reported by Law360, Courthouse News Service, and Bloomberg Law, the judges questioned whether DoD could produce any empirical evidence that transgender service negatively impacts readiness, cohesion, or medical deployability. (Law360, Oct 20, 2025) | (Courthouse News Service, Oct 20, 2025) | (Advocate.com, Oct 21, 2025)

A written decision has not yet been released. The Ninth Circuit typically posts opinions to its public docket without advance notice. Observers expect a ruling “in the coming months.”

Opinion: What This Means for Military and Federal Employees

The tone of Monday’s hearing suggests the court may reject the government’s “blanket” approach. The judges’ skepticism indicates that DoD may soon be directed to re-evaluate or narrow the ban, grounding any restrictions in demonstrable evidence rather than broad classifications.

For active-duty and reserve members facing harassment or adverse action linked to gender identity, this hearing offers reason for cautious optimism. Even as litigation continues, service members and DoD civilians retain independent administrative remedies—including Equal Opportunity complaints, Inspector General filings, and EEO or MSPB channels for federal workers.

Those who have experienced disciplinary action, medical disqualification, or separation under the new policy should preserve documentation and seek prompt legal counsel. These records will be critical if the Ninth Circuit affirms the injunction or orders a partial stay.

Resources and Citations

David P. Sheldon, PLLC Pursuing Class Action to Protect NOAA and U.S. Public Health Service Retirees and Families

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Senior Attorneys Annie Morgan and Dylan Thayer of The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, intend to prepare a class action lawsuit on behalf of retirees and surviving family members of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who may face interruptions in their retirement or survivor benefit payments during a federal government shutdown.

If you or a loved one is a retired officer or survivor who has experienced or is at risk of delayed or withheld payments, we would like to hear from you. Your participation may help hold the government accountable and ensure permanent protection for those who served their nation honorably.

About the Case

Given funding lapses, USPHS and NOAA retirees and survivors will likely be exclude from payment while other federal and uniformed service members will continue to receive compensation. Although current legislative proposals—such as Sen. Ron Johnson’s “Shutdown Fairness Act” (S.3012)—would extend pay to certain active-duty and excepted employees, they, again, fail to protect retired officers and survivor beneficiaries.

This disparity leaves thousands of former officers and their families vulnerable to missed payments, despite their years of service and contributions to public health, environmental protection, and national readiness. The class action seeks a judicial remedy to establish that these payments are vested entitlements, not discretionary appropriations subject to political impasse.

“Our firm believes that no retiree or widow should ever wonder whether their next paycheck will arrive,” said David P. Sheldon, principal attorney. “These officers dedicated their lives to service—often in hardship tours and public emergencies. Their benefits should be guaranteed, regardless of Washington gridlock.”

Why Work with The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

David P. Sheldon, PLLC has earned national recognition representing service members, retirees, and federal employees in complex military and federal law cases, including matters before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, federal district courts, and Boards for Correction of Military Records.

The firm’s attorneys have successfully advanced class and individual actions to restore benefits, correct pay injustices, and protect due process rights across every uniformed service—Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, NOAA, and USPHS.

With decades of combined experience and a results-driven record, the firm’s attorneys bring both strategic litigation experience and deep institutional knowledge of military and federal employment law.

Contact Us

If you are a USPHS or NOAA retiree, a surviving spouse, or know someone who has been impacted, we invite you to contact our firm to discuss your eligibility for participation in this class action.

Call: 202-546-9575
Contact: militarydefense.com/contact-us

Your involvement can help ensure that the government upholds its commitments to those who served and defended the public.

 Share This Announcement

Help spread the word to NOAA and USPHS retirees and families who may be affected by these funding gaps. Together, we can safeguard the rights of those who have safeguarded our nation.

Supreme Court Case Could Leave Injured Service Members Without Recourse: Hencely v. Fluor

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army servicemembers sitting on courthouse steps

A Fight for Accountability in the War Zone

When Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely was catastrophically injured by a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield, he sought justice through a state-law negligence suit against the defense contractor Fluor. His claim was simple: the company failed to supervise a subcontractor whose employee allegedly built and detonated the bomb.

But federal courts dismissed his case, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception and related federal interests preempt any state-law negligence claims tied to wartime operations. Now, in Hencely v. Fluor (No. 24-924), the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether those immunity doctrines reach private contractors.

The Legal Question

At stake is whether the FTCA’s combatant-activities exception—which by its text shields the United States from liability for “claims arising out of the combatant activities of the military … during time of war” (28 U.S.C. § 2680(j))—also blocks suits against private contractors.

Hencely’s lawyers argue that the statute does not extend that far. They contend his claim concerns ordinary negligence, not battlefield decision-making. Fluor and the U.S. government counter that any tort case stemming from a war-zone base would entangle courts in military judgments, requiring preemption of state law to protect national security.

Why It Matters to Service Members

Because the Feres doctrine already bars active-duty personnel from suing the United States for service-related injuries, the only possible avenue for redress is often a suit against private contractors. If the Supreme Court upholds broad preemption, injured troops and their families could be completely without remedy—unable to sue either the government or its contractors, even for clear negligence in supervision, maintenance, or site safety.

That outcome would create what veterans’ advocates call a “remedy-free zone”: a world where those who serve in combat are left without any civil accountability for harm caused by negligent government partners.

Balancing Accountability and Military Deference

The Court must navigate the line between ensuring accountability and respecting the independence of military operations. Critics warn that expanding immunity invites careless contracting and removes incentives for safety. Supporters argue that allowing juries to review wartime conduct could second-guess the military and disrupt federal prerogatives.

However the Court rules, its decision will define the reach of contractor immunity in modern warfare and determine whether service members can still seek justice in civilian courts when contractor negligence contributes to their injuries.

Key Legal References

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or sharing this post does not create an attorney–client relationship. Service members facing similar issues should consult qualified counsel familiar with military and federal tort law.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, correction-board petitions, security-clearance matters, and federal employment disputes. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

 

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.

 

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.

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