Tag: UCMJ

Judge Reasserts the First Amendment and Protects Veteran Voices

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Defending the Constitution

In a striking rebuke to the Pentagon’s attempt to punish Senator Mark Kelly, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked the Defense Department from reducing Kelly’s retired rank and pension, a decision that should reverberate well beyond this one lawsuit.

At the heart of Judge Leon’s order is a simple constitutional truth: free speech is not a conditional benefit to be revoked when the government disagrees with the message. Leon’s ruling affirms that principle in the face of an unprecedented effort to penalize a retired service member for publicly urging troops to refuse unlawful orders.

Leon made clear in earlier hearings that this isn’t just an ordinary dispute about retirement benefits. He questioned Pentagon lawyers about their legal foundation, noting pointedly that what the government was asking the court to endorse was something “the Supreme Court…has never done.” That skepticism was not just procedural; it was a signal that the framing of this case threatened long-established First Amendment norms.

By granting Kelly’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Leon has done more than protect one senator’s livelihood. He has sent a message to the executive branch: You cannot weaponize military status to chill speech that is at the core of democratic debate. The government’s effort to reduce Kelly’s rank and retirement pay for exercising his right to speak plainly about unlawful orders was, as Leon’s ruling implies, exactly the sort of retaliatory overreach our constitutional framework is designed to prevent.

In a political climate where disputes over national security and military policy are intense and often divisive, judges must be guardians first of the Constitution, not partisans of the outcry. Judge Leon’s decision, grounded in fundamental First Amendment principles, reminds us that veterans do not surrender their civic voice when they leave active service.

Judge Leon closed his opinion with this sage advice:

“ Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years. If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Private Power, Public Uniform: What Happens When Tech Executives Are Commissioned as Army Officers?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Military Law Analysis on Dual Roles, Conflict of Interest, and the Reach of the UCMJ

 

When four prominent tech executives from companies like Palantir, Meta, OpenAI, and Thinking Machines Lab were appointed as officers in the U.S. Army Reserve, it made headlines for its novelty, but the deeper issue is legal, not symbolic. These appointments raise serious concerns under federal ethics laws and military justice statutes, especially where government contracts and national defense intersect with private enterprises.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, where we specialize in military and federal law, we recognize the growing legal complexity faced by service members who also maintain civilian leadership roles in the private sector. The direct commissioning of executives with active Department of Defense (DoD) contracts into the military is not just unusual, it may push the limits of conflict-of-interest protections and military accountability.

While Reserve officers typically serve part-time and do not require Senate confirmation, their legal obligations under military law are anything but part-time. Once commissioned, these individuals become subject to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and more importantly, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) when performing military duties or training. That means a tech CEO wearing the uniform on drill weekend or while representing the military in any official capacity is legally accountable under Articles of the UCMJ such as:

  • Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful orders)
  • Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer)
  • Article 134 (General article, including ethics violations)

These articles apply regardless of civilian status or rank in the private sector. Further, Reserve officers must comply with regulations such as the Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.07-R) and federal conflict statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 208, which bars federal personnel from participating in government matters that impact their personal or financial interests.

This raises fundamental questions: If an Army Reserve officer is also an executive at a company bidding for, or executing, government contracts, can that officer truly separate military service from private gain? Even with recusals or waivers, the appearance of undue influence or privileged access could undermine the integrity of both military command and procurement processes.

What makes these cases particularly sensitive is the evolving role of artificial intelligence, data infrastructure, and cloud technology in U.S. defense strategy. Companies like Palantir and Meta are not just tech firms, they are defense stakeholders. Their leaders’ dual roles now bring unprecedented proximity to the strategic, ethical, and legal frameworks that govern military decision-making.

The military has long relied on direct commissions to attract specialized civilian talent, doctors, lawyers, chaplains, but these new appointments suggest a possible strategic shift that blurs lines between private sector innovation and military authority. Without greater oversight, clearer regulations, and firm enforcement of military law, the implications could be profound, not only for military readiness and contracting fairness, but for public trust.

As a military law firm that has represented hundreds of service members facing administrative actions, ethics investigations, and UCMJ charges, we know how critical it is to protect the legal boundaries between personal interests and public duty. The Reserve commission is not symbolic; it is a legal obligation backed by the full force of military law.

If you are a service member, Reservist, or civilian professional navigating similar dual-role concerns, particularly in defense contracting or federal employment, we encourage you to seek legal counsel. The consequences of crossing the line between civilian advantage and military duty can be more than reputational, they can be legal.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, is a nationally recognized law firm representing service members, federal employees, and civilians in military justice and federal employment law. The firm has successfully represented clients in courts-martial, separation boards, security clearance revocations, and conflict-of-interest matters across the armed services.

Disclaimer:
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For personalized legal guidance, please consult a licensed attorney.