Tag: military justice

Who’s Who Behind the Amicus Brief and Why It Matters for Every Veteran

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A powerful amicus curiae brief filed in Kelly v. Hegseth brings together an extraordinary coalition of former service secretaries, retired senior military leaders, and veteran advocates to deliver a unified warning to the court: punishing a retired service member for truthful public speech about military law threatens democratic self-government and chills the voices of millions of veterans nationwide.

This is not an abstract dispute about decorum or discipline. It is a case about who gets to speak, what the law actually requires, and whether veterans remain full participants in civic life after they hang up the uniform.

The Case at the Center

The lawsuit was brought by Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy Captain and sitting U.S. Senator, after the Department of Defense took the unprecedented step of formally censuring him for public statements explaining a settled principle of military law: service members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

The defendant is Pete Hegseth, sued in his official capacity.

The amicus brief supports Senator Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction, warning that allowing this punishment to stand would dramatically expand executive power over veteran speech.

Who Filed the Amicus Brief—and Why Their Voices Matter

Former Service Secretaries: Civilian Oversight at Stake

Among the amici are former civilian leaders entrusted with oversight of the armed forces, including:

  • Louis E. Caldera
  • Sean C. O’Keefe

Their participation signals that this case is not about politics—it is about preserving lawful civilian-military norms and constitutional boundaries.

Retired Generals and Admirals: Unmatched Military Authority

More than 40 retired senior officers across every branch of the armed forces signed the brief. Collectively, they served under every president from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Donald J. Trump.

Notable signatories include:

  • Antonio Taguba, known for leading the Abu Ghraib investigation
  • Michael V. Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA
  • Claudia J. Kennedy, the first woman to reach three-star rank in the Army
  • Thad W. Allen, former Commandant of the Coast Guard

These are not marginal critics. They are the leaders who trained troops, commanded forces, enforced military law, and safeguarded the institution’s credibility.

Veteran Civil Society: The Broader Impact

The brief is also joined by Vet Voice Foundation, a non-partisan organization representing nearly two million veterans and military family members.

Their involvement highlights the real-world consequences: when veteran speech is chilled, public debate suffers—and so does democratic accountability.

Counsel for the Amici

The amici are represented by leading democracy and constitutional-law organizations:

  • Protect Democracy Project
  • States United Democracy Center

What the Amicus Brief Argues—At a Glance

  1. Veteran Participation Is Essential to Democracy

Veterans serve throughout public life—as legislators, judges, journalists, educators, and advocates. Silencing them deprives the public of informed perspectives on national security and military policy.

  1. The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders Is Settled Law

The brief traces this principle through U.S. military case law, the Law of War, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and post-World War II precedent. Explaining this duty publicly is accurate, lawful, and necessary, not misconduct.

  1. UCMJ Speech Limits Do Not Apply to This Case

Even for active-duty service members, speech may be restricted only where there is a direct and palpable connection to military mission or discipline. That standard is nowhere close to being met here—especially for a retired officer holding elected office.

If the government’s position were accepted, the brief warns, no meaningful First Amendment protection would remain for veterans.

Why This Moment Matters

The amici make clear that they filed this brief despite recognizing the risk of retaliation themselves. That chilling effect is the constitutional injury at the heart of this case.

If a retired service member can be punished for accurately explaining military law—then every veteran’s voice becomes conditional, subject to political approval.

This case is about more than one Senator. It is about whether service ends with silence—or whether veterans remain full participants in the democracy they defended.

Documents

Kelly amicus brief

1 Complaint Kelly v. Hegseth, 1.12.26

2 Kelly motion for emergency TRO and PI, 1.12.26

Amicus brief in support of Kelly, 1.20.26

4 Govt opposition to Kelly PI motion, 1.22.26 

Senator Kelly Reply brief in support of PI motion, 1.26.26

Citations & References

  • Brief of Amici Curiae Former Service Secretaries, Retired Senior Military Officers, and Vet Voice Foundation in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay, Kelly v. Hegseth, No. 1:26-cv-00081-RJL (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2026). Kelly amicus brief
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice; Manual for Courts-Martial
  • United States v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19 (1973)
  • United States v. Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. 105 (C.A.A.F. 1995)
  • Department of Defense Law of War Manual

Constitution vs. Unlawful Retaliation: Why This Lawsuit Matters to Every Service Member

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Gavel military judge

A constitutional line has been crossed, and every service member, veteran, and military family should be paying close attention.

In a newly filed federal lawsuit, a retired U.S. Navy service member, Arizona Senior Senator Mark Kelly, CAPT, USN (retired) is challenging what many legal experts are calling an unprecedented and unlawful act: a post-retirement demotion allegedly driven by political retaliation. The case, now drawing national attention, raises fundamental questions about free speech, civilian control, and the integrity of military justice itself.

As reported in Axios, Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie Morgan did not mince words in her assessment, calling the action “patently politically motivated” and warning that it represents a direct attack on long-standing constitutional protections afforded to both active-duty personnel and retirees.

A Dangerous Expansion of Power

At the center of the lawsuit is an effort reportedly tied to Pete Hegseth that seeks to retroactively punish a retired service member, someone no longer subject to the day-to-day authority of the chain of command. If allowed to stand, this move would represent a dramatic expansion of government power into territory that has historically been off-limits.

Military retirement is not a conditional privilege that can be revoked for disfavored speech. It is an earned status, grounded in decades of service and protected by constitutional principles. As Morgan explains, using rank demotion as a political weapon risks transforming military justice into a tool of retaliation rather than discipline.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech

The implications extend far beyond one individual.

If retirees can be punished years later for expressing political views, criticizing government leadership, or participating in public discourse, the result will be a chilling effect across the entire military community. Active-duty service members, reservists, and veterans alike may reasonably fear that speaking out, even lawfully, could jeopardize their careers, benefits, or reputations.

That outcome cuts directly against the First Amendment and undermines the trust that service members must have in a fair, apolitical system of justice.

Why This Lawsuit Is a Line in the Sand

This case is not about politics; it is about limits.

It asks whether the government can reach backward in time to impose punishment on someone who has already completed honorable service. It challenges whether military authority ends at retirement, as the law has long recognized, or whether it can be revived whenever speech becomes inconvenient.

As covered in Axios, the lawsuit positions itself as a landmark challenge to government overreach, one that could set precedent for how far retaliation may go if left unchecked.

What Comes Next

Courts now have the opportunity and the responsibility to reaffirm that constitutional protections do not disappear at the end of active service. For veterans who have already given years, and often decades, to the nation, that assurance is not symbolic. It is essential.

This case will shape the future of military justice, free speech, and the relationship between service and citizenship.

Read the full Axios reporting here to understand why this lawsuit matters not just to one retired officer, but to every person who has worn the uniform.

A Season of Gratitude for Those Who Serve and Those Still Waiting

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Sentiment for Holidays

As families gather during the holiday season, it is a time to pause and express gratitude—for service, for sacrifice, and for the quiet resilience of those who continue to serve even when recognition comes slowly, if at all.

Across the military and federal workforce, many service members and employees spend this time of year navigating unresolved challenges: pending medical evaluations, delayed retirement decisions, discharge reviews still under consideration, or careers placed on hold by administrative processes that move far more slowly than life itself. These are not abstract issues. They shape families’ futures, financial stability, and a sense of dignity earned through years of service.

This season invites reflection not only on what has been given, but on what is still owed—fair process, timely decisions, and lawful treatment. Gratitude does not require silence about the systems that affect those who serve. Instead, it can take the form of patient advocacy, careful attention to detail, and a commitment to ensuring that every case is reviewed on its merits.

For many, the holidays arrive without resolution. Yet service continues—often quietly, often unseen. Families adapt. Careers wait. And hope persists that the coming year will bring clarity, fairness, and accountability.

At this time of year, we extend our sincere thanks to service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families. Your service matters. Your patience is not unnoticed. And your right to fair treatment under the law remains essential—during the holidays and beyond.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Overturns Airman’s Conviction; Restores Honor and Career

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Montana Air

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC announced today a significant victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which unanimously reversed the wrongful conviction of an Airman wrongfully convicted of cocaine use.  The unanimous decision found that prosecutors had wrongfully failed to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland.

This decision likely secures more than three years of back pay and allowances for the Airman and, most importantly, removes his criminal conviction, ensuring he will be honorably discharged.

From Injustice to Vindication

The young Airman faced a devastating court-martial conviction in 2021 at Little Rock Air Force Base after the government withheld and destroyed critical evidence that could have exonerated him. While one of his co-accused was acquitted and another not even charged, the Airman was left with a court martial conviction, “bad paper” discharge, denied appellate review, and forced to rebuild his life working at a Home Depot.

After his initial Article 69 petition was denied, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC took the case pro bono. When the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie Morgan, argued the appeal before the CAAF in Spring of 2025.

This morning, the CAAF issued its unanimous decision, ruling that the lower court erred in dismissing withheld exculpatory evidence, a clear violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Court found the government’s destruction of investigative files and failure to disclose evidence fundamentally undermined the fairness of the trial.

A Voice for All Service Members

“This case reaffirms that every service member, no matter their rank, deserves a fair trial,” said Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “Our client stood alone for years, but today the Court has restored his honor and ensured that justice prevails.”

Case Impact

The Court set aside both the findings and the sentence, underscoring that suppressed evidence of potential innocent ingestion and investigative misconduct should have been disclosed.

This ruling strengthens due-process protections across the armed forces and sends a clear message that the government must honor its constitutional discovery obligations.

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 firm representing military service members, federal employees, and veterans. With a focus on courts-martial defense, medical retirement boards, and appeals before military and federal courts, the firm is committed to safeguarding the rights, careers, and honor of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. No attorney-client relationship is created by this announcement.

 

Two USPHS Officers File Federal Lawsuits Against HHS Secretary and PHS Correction Board Over Promotion Delays

Posted on by Becky Haugen

USPHS Justice

Two United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Lieutenant Commanders have filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records (PHS BFC).

Both officers allege that federal officials unlawfully denied their applications to correct their service records after policy changes extended their eligibility for promotion to Commander (O-5) by several years. Each argues that their cases were never reviewed by a legally required “board of civilians,” as mandated by 10 U.S.C. § 1552 and Public Health Service regulations.

According to the complaints, the PHS BFC improperly delegated decisions to its Executive Secretary, board staff, and HHS Office of General Counsel—bypassing impartial civilian review. The lawsuits assert that these actions were “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A).

Both officers, who joined the USPHS with strong service records and early promotions to Lieutenant Commander, claim that the 2024 policy revision to CCI 331.01 unlawfully pushed back their next promotion eligibility to 2029. They seek judicial relief to restore their original 2026 promotion opportunities and recover back pay and allowances.

According to the officer’s attorney Dylan Thayer, “Our clients dedicated themselves to the mission of the Public Health Service, stepping forward in times of crisis and fulfilling their duty with distinction. Yet when they sought fair review of their records, they were denied the very protections Congress guaranteed through impartial civilian oversight. These lawsuits are not just about promotions, they are about accountability, fairness, and ensuring that those who serve our nation receive the justice they are entitled to under the law.”

The lawsuits, filed by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, highlight broader concerns about fairness, oversight, and due process in military and uniformed service correction boards, which by statute must provide impartial civilian review.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in military justice, administrative law, corrections of records, and federal employment disputes. The firm is recognized nationally for defending the rights of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.