Officials tried to push the case to another court - the judge said no
A federal judge kept alive a contractor employee's claim that government officials forced his firing over social media posts about a public figure.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia denied the government's bid to dismiss the case on September 11, 2026, allowing a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed.
The worker was an engineer and project manager at Advanced Concepts Enterprises, Inc., known as ACES, a contractor for the US Coast Guard. He handled communications technology projects at Coast Guard headquarters. His complaint says he "received nothing but" "praise" and "positive feedback" from the Coast Guard.
About two months after he joined ACES, a conservative activist was shot and killed at a college event in Utah. The engineer posted about the activist on Facebook, according to his complaint, which does not detail what the posts said.
A Defense Department official then contacted a DHS chief of staff about "inappropriate behavior" by a Coast Guard contractor, the complaint alleges. The chief of staff replied that he would "take care of the . . . matter" and allegedly emailed staff to "offboard[]" the contractor "without delay." Days later, ACES received a federal directive to terminate the engineer's work. The company told him its hands were tied.
He sued both officials, the two departments, and the agencies' leaders. The government argued the complaint was a contract dispute belonging in the Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act.
The court rejected that on two grounds. The government contract sat between the Coast Guard and ACES - the engineer was not a party - so the contract-claims system did not apply to him. And his claim rested on constitutional free-speech rights that existed "prior to and apart from" any contract. Using contracting power as the mechanism did not convert a speech claim into a contract one, the court held.
The retaliation claim now moves forward in district court. The judge dismissed two other counts: a standalone declaratory-judgment claim, because that act does not create an independent cause of action, and a mandamus claim, because the surviving retaliation count already provided an adequate remedy.
For HR leaders managing contractor workforces, the holding draws a line: a contractor's employee with no government contract of his own can still bring a constitutional claim directly against federal officials over a directed termination.
The ruling addressed only whether the case could proceed. No findings have been made on the merits, and the case continues.
