Federal Court Refuses to Let Navy Off the Hook for Banning Veteran Advocate from Military Facebook Page

Judge Rules First Amendment Case Against Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay Can Proceed. 

A federal judge refused to dismiss a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a retired Army veteran who was banned from the official Facebook page of Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay. The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the Eastern District of Virginia is a significant first step in holding the Navy accountable for silencing a well-known military family advocate. 

The case was filed on behalf of Sergio Rodriguez, a retired Army veteran and military spouse who has spent years helping military families navigate housing problems on bases across the country. On August 12, 2024, after a power outage left families on base without electricity for over twelve hours in the summer heat, Rodriguez posted questions on the base’s public Facebook page asking officials how they planned to help military families affected by the power outage. The base initially responded to Sergio’s post, but within hours, officials banned him from the page entirely—and his years of prior posts and comments disappeared. 

“I spent my career serving this country, and the years since, I have tried to make sure the families of those who still serve are taken care of,” said Sergio Rodriguez. “When I asked questions any concerned base resident would ask—they silenced me and erased everything I’d ever written on that page. That’s not how the government is supposed to treat its citizens, and I’m grateful the court agreed this fight isn’t over.”  

The Navy moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that because it eventually restored Rodriguez’s access to the page—after he filed suit—the case was moot and the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Smith squarely rejected that argument, applying the “voluntary cessation” doctrine, which holds that a defendant cannot extinguish a lawsuit by simply pausing its unconstitutional conduct after getting sued. The court found that the Navy had not met its “formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear” the wrongful conduct could not reasonably recur. 

“The Navy banned a decorated veteran for asking whether military families had food in their refrigerators and a cool place to sleep,” said CIR Attorney Michelle Scott. “That is exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination the First Amendment forbids.” 

The court was equally unpersuaded by the Navy’s claim that a revised Social Media Handbook, issued two months after Rodriguez was banned, now prevented the base from blocking users. The judge found the Handbook amounted to internal guidance, not a binding constraint, and that the Navy had offered no explanation for why banning Rodriguez was permissible in the first place. A vague declaration from the base’s Public Affairs Officer promising not to block Rodriguez “on account of comments like those” he previously made—without admitting wrongdoing or pledging to follow the Handbook—was, the court found, precisely the sort of “sparse declaration” the Supreme Court recently held insufficient to dismiss a lawsuit. 

“The government cannot silence its critics and then moot the lawsuit by giving them their microphone back,” said CIR Senior Attorney Mike Petrino. “The court’s ruling means the Navy must now answer for what it did.” 

The court also noted that some of Rodriguez’s prior posts and comments remain missing from the page to this day, a dispute the parties have yet to resolve. Because that issue is intertwined with the merits of Rodriguez’s First Amendment claim, the court declined to resolve it at this stage and instead permitted the case to proceed to discovery. 

Rodriguez intends to continue using the page to monitor news and advise military families living at bases across the country. His past advocacy has earned recognition from senior military and civilian leaders, including the President and First Lady of the United States and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

More information about the case is available here. 

---

About the Center for Individual Rights  

The Center for Individual Rights is a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual liberties against unconstitutional government action. CIR’s strategic litigation has produced landmark victories for free speech, equal protection, and due process before the U.S. Supreme Court.