Judge Trevor McFadden has ruled that the Pentagon can move forward with firing three Stars and Stripes employees, rejecting claims that the terminations violate the First Amendment, a decision the plaintiffs’ attorneys say they will continue to challenge.
In a setback for the ousted publisher, editor-in-chief, and a reporter at the storied military newspaper, Judge McFadden declined to issue a preliminary injunction halting the terminations, finding that the staffers were unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claims. The decision arrived just hours after a Friday hearing and capped off a tense week for the Pentagon and the journalists at the center of the dispute.
The three employees, publisher Max Lederer, Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, and reporter Lara Korte, were issued separation notices on August 21, days after Lederer announced his retirement plans. Their lawsuit accused the Department of Defense of retaliating against them for discussing editorial independence and conditions aboard the USS Lincoln in interviews with “CBS Sunday Morning.” The Pentagon had agreed to pause the firings until Judge McFadden issued his ruling.The Hill reported that the judge’s order was 24 pages long and directly addressed the First Amendment arguments raised in the case.
“Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and the CBS News segment suggest that they spoke as part of their official duties and not as private citizens,” Judge McFadden wrote, concluding, “They are thus unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim and do not demonstrate irreparable harm.” The judge stressed that the comments at issue were not news stories or opinion columns the employees had written, but rather statements to another media outlet about their work at Stars and Stripes. “They were acting as spokespersons for their paper or as sources for another organization,” the ruling stated.AP News confirmed the ruling, quoting McFadden’s finding that “whatever else such a scheme may violate, it does not clearly offend the First Amendment.”
Pentagon officials cited alleged “insubordination and violations of regulations based on their CBS statements” as grounds for the firings of Slavin and Korte. Lederer’s separation notice pointed to his refusal to deliver those notices to the others, among other reasons. The attorneys for the three staffers argued that their clients’ interviews were about “matters of public concern,” not official business, and that they were entitled to constitutional protection.Just The News noted that the lawsuit alleged retaliation and that broader legal options remain on the table for the plaintiffs.
Taryn Wilgus Null, senior counsel at the Democracy Defenders Fund and the attorney representing the three staffers, said in a statement, “While we are disappointed in the decision, we fully expect to prevail after we have an opportunity to take discovery and all the facts are revealed.” The plaintiffs’ legal team is weighing next steps, but the immediate effect is clear: the Pentagon is not blocked from making the firings final while the larger case proceeds.
The dispute echoes broader debates about the limits of executive authority and the boundaries between official speech and private speech for government employees. Recent legal fights over White House control of federal agencies, such as the Trump administration’s removal of Election Assistance Commission officials, show how the courts can become the final arbiters of accountability within the federal bureaucracy.
The judge’s order leaves several questions unresolved, including what final employment actions will now be taken and whether the lawsuit’s claims about the Pentagon’s motives will hold up under further scrutiny. Plaintiffs’ attorneys point to the timing of unfavorable coverage of the USS Lincoln as an “accelerant,” but government lawyers insisted the termination decisions predated that article. Assistant U.S. attorney Brett Covington called the argument “a red herring.”
As the legal process moves forward, the case will test the strength of First Amendment protections for government-employed journalists and the ability of federal agencies to enforce discipline without crossing constitutional lines. It also highlights the ongoing tension between transparency, the rights of individuals within government, and the control asserted by those in power, a dynamic seen not just in the Pentagon, but in disputes over election law, executive orders, and agency oversight, such as recent court battles over mail-in voting orders.
For now, Judge McFadden’s ruling means the Pentagon’s firings will go forward while the challenge plays out, leaving the staffers to seek their “proverbial soap box” in court as discovery unfolds. The broader implications for government whistleblowers, agency independence, and First Amendment rights remain to be settled in the months ahead.
When government power comes up against individual rights, it’s the courts that set the boundaries, and too often, bureaucrats get the benefit of the doubt.
