Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—D.D.C.: Fired Stars and Stripes journalists fail in bid to secure preliminary injunction, (Sep 9, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Despite being fired after giving pre-approved interviews that largely toed the company line, the court found such actions tantamount to a “cruel bait-and-switch,” rather than a First Amendment violation.

Denying a motion for a preliminary injunction asserted by three former employees of Stars and Stripes, a federal District of Columbia court determined that media interviews given by the employees likely fell under the category of official, rather than private citizen, speech. The court noted that one such participant was an editor-in-chief who filmed his interview in the Stripes newsroom, weakening his assertion that he was speaking as private citizen. Although it was a closer call for another participant who did not occupy a senior position, she nevertheless had a history of giving similar interviews and likely participated as part of her official duties. It followed that their boss’s failure to carry out a directive from a supervisor found no First Amendment shelter either (Slavin v. Parnell, No. 1:26-cv-03009 (TNM) (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2026)).

The three plaintiffs in this case consist of the editor-in-chief for the Stars and Stripes, a reporter and photographer, and the paper’s publisher.

CBS interviews. On July 5, 2026, CBS Sunday Morning ran an eight-minute segment titled “The Battle Over Stars and Stripes” documenting encroachments on the publication’s traditional independence. The segment featured interviews with the editor-in-chief and the reporter and took place in their respective offices with staff working in the background. The two had requested and received permission from their superiors to make comments prior to giving their interviews. During their interviews, the two defended the publication’s independence from being a mouthpiece for the Pentagon.

Separation notices. Last month, the three plaintiffs received notices of proposed separation. The interviewees’ notices cited their critical statements in the CBS new piece, as well as their failure to receive authorization to participate in the interview. The publisher’s notice cited statements he made to a Stars and Stripes reporter and his refusal to deliver the notices to the interviewees.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs sued the Department of Defense and several Defense officials, moving for a preliminary injunction, which the court now considered.

Public or private speech? At its core, the plaintiffs’ motion turned on Pickering’s first factor, which is whether they spoke as citizens on matters of public concern. The Department of Defense did not contest that they had spoken about matters of public concern. The question was whether they spoke as public employees or private citizens. Further, the court noted that consideration must also be given to the critical question under Garcetti, which is whether the speech at issue fell within the ordinary scope of an employee’s duties.

Official capacities. First, the court considered the interview given by the editor-in-chief. By his own account, he was an experienced interviewee. “It is unsurprising that the editor-in-chief of a media enterprise would be officially responsible for speaking publicly about current issues facing the publication,” observed the court, noting that by his own admission this was his seventeenth time speaking to a major news publication in his current role about the status of Stars and Stripes under current Department of Defense leadership. This repeated concession—that he regularly spoke in his official capacity about new Department leadership—cut against his speech being that of a private citizen.

Moreover, the editor-in-chief was identified by his title, had hosted the interviewer in the newsroom, discussed only Stars and Stripes, and reviewed his remarks in advance with superiors. He also complained at times about conduct that interfered with his job responsibilities. The court explained that although no single fact is dispositive, together they formed a hurdle that he was unable to overcome with regard to a preliminary injunction.

It was a closer call as to the reporter and photographer. She was not a senior employee like the editor-in-chief, which weakened the expectation that she would normally conduct an official interview about the publication. Still, she failed to carry her burden that she spoke as a private citizen for reasons similar to that of the editor-in-chief. Her superiors were closely involved in arranging the interview, she appeared in her office near a coworker, was introduced by her title, and spoke only about her work. She also had a past history of giving interviews, all of which undermined her assertion that the interview was not part of her normal work tasks that she was paid to perform.

Public interviews. The circumstances of this case differed in a notable way from others in the circuit on official speech, observed the court. That is, it involved comments made in public interviews. D.C. Circuit precedent interpreting Garcetti’s “pursuant to official duties” standard usually involves complaints made by employees to their superiors about workplace conditions impairing their official duties. The public interviews in this instance do not precisely fit this mold.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs’ participation in public interviews was not dispositive, explained the court. Other circuits have recognized that public employees appearing to speak on behalf of their employer can do so in their official capacity, and the D.C. Circuit has never held to the contrary. Thus, the plaintiffs had failed to make the necessary clear showing that this distinction entitled them to a preliminary injunction.

Publisher’s claims. Turning to the publisher’s First Amendment claims surrounding his refusal to deliver the notices of separation, the court found that because the other two plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their First Amendment claims, this failure to carry out a directive from a superior found no shelter under the First Amendment.

Another ground for the publisher’s termination was also unlikely violative of the First Amendment. When interviewed by Stars and Stripes about his upcoming retirement, he stated that he felt out of synch with “the pace and direction” set by leadership. Such statements owed their existence to his frustration with the Department of Defense’s interference with his ordinary job responsibilities as publisher, explained the court.

Journalist protections. As a fallback position, the plaintiffs argued that if they did speak pursuant to their ordinary job responsibilities, then Garcetti could not apply because they are afforded special First Amendment protection as journalists. The court was not persuaded.

Such a theory “ignores that not all duties of even a professional journalist are essentially journalistic,” said the court. The comments made by the plaintiffs were not a story, op-ed, or breaking headline that they themselves had edited or authored. Indeed, two of the plaintiffs made statements to another media agency altogether.

Irreparable harm. With regard to whether the plaintiffs had shown that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction, the court found that they had failed to satisfy this burden since they were unable to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.

Equities, public interest. Finally, the court considered the balance of equities and the public interest. On this point, the court found that the plaintiffs had largely reiterated their arguments on the merits and irreparable harm, arguments that the court had already rejected. Further, the court determined that Stars and Stripes’ “editorial independence is not stake here.” On the other hand, continued the court, the Department of Defense has an interest in regulating the speech of its employees and has traditionally been given wide latitude in governing its own affairs. Accordingly, the court found the balance of equities favored the Department of Defense.

In conclusion, the court noted that perhaps discovery will strengthen the plaintiffs’ case, but on the current record they appeared to be the victims of a “cruel bait-and-switch.” They were fired for giving pre-approved interviews on their paper’s behalf in which they largely toed the line. “Whatever else such a scheme may violate, it does not clearly offend the First Amendment,” said the court, denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The case is No. 1:26-cv-03009 (TNM).

Judge: McFadden, T.

Attorneys: Brian Christopher Ward (Democracy Defenders Fund) for Erik A. Slavin, Lara S. Korte and Max D. Lederer. Brett S. Covington, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Sean Parnell, Andrew Brey, U.S. Department of Defense and Peter B. Hegseth.

Cases: IndividualRights Discharge PublicEmployees RemediesDamages DistrictofColumbiaNews