Category: Spotlight

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Passport

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights:

Overview:

On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay, thus allowing the Department of State to continue to enforce a policy requiring all new U.S. passports to list the sex assigned at birth rather than a gender‐identity marker or an “X” designation.

The policy reversed 33 years of previous practice which allowed applicants to select gender markers consistent with their identity.

A lower federal court had preliminarily enjoined the new policy, finding potential irreparable harm to transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals (a position supported by the three Justices who dissented from the stay decision); the Supreme Court’s stay suspends that injunction while the underlying litigation continues.

In short: the Court’s action does not dispose of the merits, but it immediately permits the government’s policy to be enforced while appeals proceed—raising significant legal and practical implications for identity recognition and travel. Notably, the Court’s opinion also indicated its preliminary view that the Government is  likely to succeed in the case.

Effect on Military Service Members and Federal Employees

From a legal vantage point, this opinion is about much more than a technical change in the content of travel documents, it constitutes a meaningful shift in how identity, service, and federal recognition intersect for service members and federal employees who are transgender or nonbinary.

At its core, the policy change presents three principal categories of legal concern: (1) mobility and assignment risk; (2) documentary alignment and clearance/fitness burdens; and (3) the doctrinal posture of transgender rights under equal protection and administrative law.

Mobility and Assignment Risk

For a service member or federal employee, passports are not mere travel credentials, they can be mission-essential equipment. When a member’s official identity document reflects a gender marker inconsistent with their lived identity, the risk is operational: at foreign borders, in allied nation environments, on joint exercises, and during global deployments. A passport listing only the sex assigned at birth may immediately out a transgender or nonbinary individual, raising questions of security, host-nation reception, and force protection. The Court’s stay thus has the practical effect of making some assignments riskier for those individuals, even if their other credentials (military ID, DEERS, CAC, etc.) align with their gender identity.

Documentary Alignment and Federal Service Burden

The military and federal employment systems rely on coherence and consistency among personnel records, security clearances, travel documents, medical records, and identity verification systems. When a passport marker diverges from other records, it introduces friction: clearance adjudicators may wonder whether mismatched documents signal concealment or instability. Commanders may hesitate to send qualified individuals into roles where identity mismatches could degrade trust. Transgender and nonbinary persons, therefore, face a unique documentary burden: while their performance may meet standards, their identity alignment becomes a persistent administrative stressor.

Additionally, the policy sends a signal: even if the individual has changed their name, corrected records, and deployed without incident, the federal government now says that their passport will reflect their birth-sex, not their gender identity. That structural disjunction, between recognition in uniform and misrecognition in travel documents, raises novel career and administrative risks.

Doctrinal Posture: Equal Protection & Administrative Law

Legally, Trump v. Orr is important for how it frames transgender/nonbinary rights. In the district-court litigation underlying the stay (Orr v. Trump), the plaintiffs challenged the policy under the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection component, the Due Process right to travel, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for arbitrary and capricious agency action. The government argued that listing sex at birth is a factual administrative classification and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the stay suggests that at least on the emergency docket it viewed the government’s interest in uniformity of government issuance and foreign-affairs deference as meriting temporary relief.

For military and federal employees, the doctrinal import is this: if the Court treats this kind of identity regulation as subject only to rational-basis review, then future policies impacting transgender and nonbinary individuals, whether in fitness standards, deployment eligibility, health care access, or records changes, may face a less rigorous judicial review threshold. The bureaucratic authority to define which identities count may grow larger.

Specific Implications for Service Members and Federal Employees

  • Service members with deployments, TDYs, or exchange billets abroad may now face additional barriers if their passport mis-identifies them. Commands may delay or cancel assignments citing “logistical or diplomatic risk.”
  • Noncommissioned and commissioned personnel seeking security clearances could face increased scrutiny if their records show inconsistencies between their identity and travel documentation—creating an unspoken impediment to advancement.
  • Veterans transitioning to federal civilian employment or contractor roles may see their mobility and international travel constrained, and their identity-related documentation mismatches may reduce eligibility for roles that require international travel or clearance.
  • The ruling signals to federal agencies that policies prerequisite to identity recognition (e.g., gender marker changes, name changes, affirming health care) may be vulnerable to future roll-backs or reinterpretations, complicating long-term planning for transgender and nonbinary federal employees.

Conclusion

While the stay in Trump v. Orr is temporary and the litigation remains ongoing, the immediate outcome is clear: the federal government will now issue passports that ignore gender identity in favor of sex assigned at birth. For transgender and nonbinary individuals in uniform or federal service, this decision shifts mobility from a right to a potential vulnerability, imposes administrative burdens, and signals that identity recognition by the state can be unilaterally narrowed. From a policy-defense standpoint, any advocacy for trans and nonbinary service members must now treat passports and travel documents as frontline rights, not peripheral concerns.

Key Legal Resources & References

  • Supreme Court Trump Passport Gender Ruling Washington Post
  • Orr v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass.). Case Law
  • Trump v. Orr, Application 25A319, Supreme Court. Supreme Court
  • Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Whitehouse.gov
  • ACLU Press Release, “Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Enforce Discriminatory Passport Policy.” American Civil Liberties Union
  • Lambda Legal, “Identity Document Guidance for Transgender, Nonbinary, Gender-Nonconforming + Intersex People.” Lambda Legal

After Years of Legal Barriers, Client Secures Critical Breakthrough in Mandamus Fight to Restore Full Appellate Review

Posted on by Becky Haugen

DC Barrett Perryman Courthouse

In a case defined by extraordinary perseverance and complex jurisdictional obstacles, a former Guantanamo detainee represented by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has taken a major step forward in the effort to secure the full measure of appellate review guaranteed under federal law.

For more than a decade, the client has fought, often against procedural roadblocks not of their own making, to obtain a lawful review of their conviction by the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), as required under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). Despite years of delay, shifting interpretations of waiver rules, repeated abeyances, and a novel assertion of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the client has refused to abandon the pursuit of lawful, congressionally mandated review.

Today’s development underscores one truth: the client’s courage, resilience, and insistence on the rule of law have kept this case alive when institutions failed to act.

A Story of Unusual Persistence in the Face of Systemic Delay

The client’s path to justice has been anything but direct. Though Congress established mandatory appellate review for military commission cases, the procedural history of this matter has been marked by:

  • Multiple delays and long periods of abeyance at the USCMCR
  • Government-created procedural roadblocks to obtain the record necessary for appeal, requiring mandamus intervention
  • A eventual dismissal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, despite the client’s transfer being conducted under a formal diplomatic agreement—not flight, evasion, or refusal to appear and client remaining subject to lawful extradition

At every stage, the client remained steadfast. At every barrier, the client continued to assert the right Congress guarantees.

“This case has always been about ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored,” said Annie Morgan. “Our client has shown extraordinary strength in the face of procedural obstacles that should never have occurred. Their resilience is the reason we are still moving forward. And we will continue to fight until the statutory right to review is finally fulfilled.”

Why This Case Matters

This fight extends well beyond a single appeal. At its core, it speaks to:

  • The long-standing brokenness of the military commissions systems;
  • The duty of tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction Congress mandates; and
  • The fundamental principle that no person, no matter the forum, should lose their rights due to administrative delay or misapplied doctrine.

Congress was explicit:
The USCMCR “shall review the record in each case submitted to it.” (10 U.S.C. § 950f(d)).

When agencies fail to act, the courts must intervene. That is the purpose of mandamus—and the reason this client’s fight continues.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier national practice focused on military law, federal employment, veteran’s rights, and the defense of service members across all uniformed services. Our team litigates before military commissions, federal courts, the Board for Correction of Military Records, the MSPB, and agencies across the United States. We are committed to protecting those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release provides general information regarding ongoing litigation and does not offer legal advice. No confidential client details have been disclosed. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

 

After a Decade of Waiting, Former Army Officer Finally Wins Long-Overdue Retirement Relief

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army reservist receives justice

For more than ten years, a dedicated Army Reserve officer lived under the weight of a decision that abruptly ended her career just months before she reached the crucial milestone needed to secure her earned retirement. Today, that chapter finally closes and a new one begins.

On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command formally notified her that her request for a Mandatory Removal Date (MRD) extension has been approved and that the Army has corrected her records to reflect completion of 20 years of qualifying service. The Army simultaneously issued her long-delayed 20-year retirement letter and revoked her 2015 discharge order, clearing the way for her to receive her retirement benefits at last.

This outcome comes after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled earlier this year that the Army’s prior denial was “arbitrary and capricious,” identifying several critical errors in the Army’s reasoning and ordering the case remanded for proper review.

What happened next was extraordinary: the Army, upon reconsideration, agreed with the court, the evidence, and, finally, the truth.

A Story of Service, Setback, and Steadfast Resolve

The woman at the center of this decision served her country faithfully for nearly two decades, joining the Army Reserve later in life, earning respect within her field, and working tirelessly to support soldiers through her medical specialty.

As she approached 20 years of service, she found herself only months short of the threshold that would allow her to retire with the benefits she earned. Despite strong recommendations from Army leadership, she was released from service at age 60 due to administrative interpretations that her specialty was “overstrength.” The decision ended her career several weeks shy of the 18-year mark, an incredibly narrow margin that, if crossed, would have obligated the Army to retain her until she reached the 20 years required for retirement.

She tried everything:

  • Seeking an extension
  • Applying to transfer into an understaffed specialty
  • Requesting reconsideration
  • Filing FOIA requests
  • Petitioning the Army Board for Correction of Military Records

Ultimately, she filed suit in federal court because all other doors had closed.

The Court found the Deputy Secretary of the Army’s decision to depart from the recommendation of the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records was inadequately explained and thus arbitrary and capricious. On remand, the Board once again granted the officer the relief she had sought in the first instance. This time, the Deputy Assistant Secretary – recognizing the clear injustice presented – agreed.

The Court found that key Army leadership decisions were based on misunderstanding, incomplete reasoning, or clear factual mistakes. The judge emphasized that her separation, occurring mere months before the pivotal window, raised serious concerns of injustice.

“This outcome is a testament to perseverance and to the principle that fairness must prevail—even when the process takes far too long,” said Dylan Thayer, the attorney representing the client. “For years, she carried the weight of an unjust separation that cut short an honorable career. Today’s decision not only restores what she earned, but it restores her faith that the system can correct itself. I am incredibly proud of her resilience and grateful to have played a role in helping her finally receive the justice she deserved.”

What This Decision Means for Her

This is more than a correction to a file. This is the restoration of a career, a legacy, and long-denied dignity.

  • Her 2015 discharge has been voided.
  • Her service record has been corrected to reflect 20 years of qualifying service.
  • Her eligibility for non-regular retired pay is confirmed.
  • She now holds her official 20-Year Letter, dated October 1, 2025.
  • She has been reassigned to the Retired Reserve effective March 10, 2018.

For her, this brings closure to a decade-long fight, one that involved navigating complex Army regulations, surviving administrative errors, and persevering against decisions that repeatedly misunderstood or overlooked the facts.

It means she can finally access the retirement benefits she earned through years of honorable service. It affirms that her contributions mattered, that her record deserved fairness, and that the system, though slow to act, can still correct itself.

This is vindication, and it is justice.

A Positive Step Forward

The decision also offers hope to other soldiers who may find themselves entangled in the opaque processes governing Army separations, MRD extensions, and retirement eligibility. It reaffirms that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records exists for a reason—and that judicial oversight ensures fairness when the administrative process falters.

Most importantly, today’s decision reminds us that behind every policy, regulation, or order is a human being whose life and livelihood hang in the balance.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this press release is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this release. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes. The details of the underlying case have been carefully presented without identifying the client, consistent with privacy and confidentiality obligations. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a qualified attorney.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized military and federal employment law firm based in Washington, D.C., representing service members, veterans, and federal employees across all branches and uniformed services. The firm specializes in complex matters including ABCMR and BCNR appeals, military records corrections, medical and disability retirement cases, security clearance actions, adverse actions, courts-martial defense, and federal employment disputes.

With decades of combined experience, the firm is known for its meticulous case preparation, appellate expertise, and unwavering commitment to securing justice for those who serve. To learn more, visit www.militarydefense.com or contact the firm directly for a confidential consultation.

 

 

Orders Under Fire: When Following Command Becomes a Legal Risk in Today’s Military

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Laura Fentress

Recent media coverage has thrust the issue of military obedience and unlawful orders into the headlines. In multiple cities, federal and National Guard deployments have been challenged as exceeding legal authority, and lawmakers have publicly urged service members to refuse orders they believe to be illegal. These developments make this long‑standing legal principle not just theoretical—but urgently relevant for today’s service members. At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we believe now is the right moment to revisit this duty in light of changing command, control and civil‑military relations.

When Obedience Becomes a Crime: The Military Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Obedience in Uniform Has Limits

Military personnel are bound by duty, discipline, and the chain of command. But that duty does not extend to illegal actions. Under both U.S. military law and international standards, service members are legally required to refuse unlawful orders—a point often overlooked in public discourse and sometimes misunderstood within the ranks.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we’ve stood beside clients worldwide who’ve had the courage to disobey in defense of justice and the Constitution. This article explores the legal, ethical, and historical foundations of the duty to refuse unlawful orders—and what protections exist for those who do.

What Is an Unlawful Order?

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, service members are required to obey lawful orders. However, not all orders are lawful, and military law draws a clear distinction between orders that must be followed and those that must be refused.

An unlawful order is one that requires the commission of a criminal act or violates the Constitution, U.S. federal law, or applicable international law.

Examples of Unlawful Orders:

  • Targeting or intentionally harming civilians
  • Torturing or abusing detainees
  • Falsifying operational or legal records
  • Engaging in unauthorized political or domestic law enforcement actions

Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.

Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).

According to Army Field Manual 27-10:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible.”

Historical and Legal Precedents

  1. Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

Established the global legal principle that “just following orders” is not a valid defense for war crimes.

  1. Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

Held a commanding officer accountable for crimes committed by subordinates—introducing the doctrine of command responsibility. (Read the case)

  1. United States v. Calley (My Lai Massacre)

Calley’s conviction showed that carrying out manifestly illegal orders—even in combat—results in individual accountability. (U.S. Army analysis)

  1. Lt. Ehren Watada (2006)

Refused deployment to Iraq, arguing that the war was illegal. Although his case ended in a mistrial, it reignited public debate on conscience versus command.  Case overview

Ethics in Action: The Burden of Moral Courage

Military obedience does not require blind loyalty. Orders carry the presumption of legality, but that presumption is rebuttable—especially when the order is clearly illegal on its face. Recognizing an unlawful order is often difficult in fast-moving, hierarchical situations. Still, ethical training and operational awareness are designed to support service members in making these critical decisions.

Protections for Service Members Who Speak Up

Disobeying an unlawful order may save lives, protect the Constitution, and uphold international law—but it can also put a service member at risk of retaliation, adverse career action, or criminal charges.

Key Legal Protections:

  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act
    Protects service members who report violations of law or abuse of authority.
    10 U.S. Code § 1034
  • MEB/PEB Appeals and Administrative Relief
    If a service member is wrongfully discharged or medically separated in retaliation, legal remedies may be pursued through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

How the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Can Help

We represent service members in all branches of the armed forces—worldwide. From courts-martial and boards of inquiry to whistleblower defense and medical discharge litigation, we know how to challenge wrongful actions at every level of military command.

If you’ve been threatened, punished, or silenced for refusing an unlawful order—or for reporting one—you are not alone. And your rights deserve to be defended.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military defense firm representing active duty, reserve, and retired service members in courts-martial, MEB/PEB proceedings, security clearance matters, administrative separation, and federal court appeals. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to protecting those who serve.

Learn more: www.militarydefense.com

Serving Clients Worldwide, Based in Washington, DC

 

References & Citations

 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is fact-specific. If you are facing a legal issue related to military justice or command authority, you should speak with a qualified and licensed military law attorney.

Honoring Every American Who Has Worn the Uniform —This Veterans Day, We Stand With You

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Honor Veterans

On Veterans Day, we reflect on more than flags, parades or ceremony. We remember the

promise made by every man and woman who raised their right hand and said: “I will serve.”

 

From the boots on the ground to the officers and enlisted in the skies, from those on active duty

today to those who served decades ago, across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,

Space Force, Coast Guard, the Commissioned Corps of the United State Public Health Service

and those who serve in the National Oceanic Atmospheric Agency, those who serve in

uniforms carry our nation’s trust forward.

 

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we’re honored to represent federal employees,

uniformed service members, veterans, and their families. We see every day the sacrifices that

accompany service — the hours away from home, the deployments, the weight of responsibility,

and the toll it takes on families.

 

And yet, for too many of our uniformed service members, including officers in the United States

Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Commissioned Officer Corps (NOAA Corps) that promise of service is coupled

with a broken promise of retirement. The fact is: they answered the call. They upheld the oath.

They trusted the system. And too often, they find themselves held back from full retirement

benefits.

 

That’s why we have launched our class-action effort, to make USPHS and NOAA retirees whole.

Because respect for service does not end when the uniform comes off. Respect must extend to

the benefits earned, the years of commitment kept.

 

This Veterans Day, let’s do more than say “thank you.”

 

Let’s act. Let’s honor the oath. Let’s secure dignity in retirement for those who stood watch for

our country and our communities.

 

If you are a uniformed service member — current, former, or transitioning — and believe your

retirement benefits have been delayed, withheld or mis-administered, now is the time to reach

out. Secure your voice. Join the effort.

 

From all of us at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC: Thank you for your service. We

honor you. We advocate for you. And we remain committed to holding the promise of retirement

true — because you kept your promise of service.  Let’s ensure your service is honored — not just with words, but with justice.

 

About Us:

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents federal employees, uniformed service

members, veterans, and their families across matters including disability retirement, military

justice, whistleblower relief, and class-action benefits litigation. This communication is for

informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney

before making decisions regarding your legal rights.

Veteran Military Attorney Karen Hecker Rejoins the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Karen Hecker joins Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC

Veteran Military Attorney Karen Hecker Rejoins the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Washington, D.C. – The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC proudly announces the return of Karen Hecker, a distinguished military and federal litigation attorney, who brings more than four decades of combined legal experience in military justice, appellate defense, and federal agency counsel service.

Before retiring from federal service in 2025, Ms. Hecker served for 21 years as an Associate General Counsel with the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, where she managed complex, high-impact litigation on behalf of the Department and its senior leadership. Her work spanned international law, personnel and health policy, fiscal matters, and military justice under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Karen’s government career followed 24 years as an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), culminating in her retirement as a Colonel in 2017 after service on active duty and in the Reserves. Her military tenure included three years as a trial defense counsel, which also involved representing cadets as Military Cadet Counsel at the United States Air Force Academy, followed by eight years as an appellate defense counsel, representing service members before both the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

She later served as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate and Staff Judge Advocate at two operational bases, and ultimately as a judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, where she presided over military appellate cases. Before her retirement, Karen also served as agency counsel for the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and during Officer Grade Determination reviews.

Returning to the firm where she previously practiced from 2001 to 2004, Karen joins as a Senior Litigation Attorney, bringing exceptional insight and experience to the firm’s representation of military and federal employees across all branches of service.

“Karen’s return to our firm is a tremendous asset for our clients,” said David P. Sheldon, founder and principal attorney. “Her depth of experience, leadership, and integrity exemplify our mission—to deliver justice and restore honor to those who serve.”

In her personal time, Karen enjoys boating on the Chesapeake Bay and volunteering with a local animal rescue organization.

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.