A federal court has refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, brought by a former Coast Guard contractor who was fired over his social media comments addressing the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly delivered his decision in a memorandum opinion on Friday, allowing Peter Souders to pursue his claim that government officials effectively forced his employer to terminate his contract.

Souders, formerly employed by Advanced Concepts Enterprises Inc. at Coast Guard headquarters, has named Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and several other officials in his legal battle.

The government had attempted to transfer the case to a different court, arguing that Souders’s claim fell under the Contract Disputes Act, which typically governs disputes between federal agencies and contract providers. However, Judge Kelly ruled against this assertion.

In his ruling, Kelly emphasized that Souders cannot be bound by a contract he never signed, as the agreement was only between the federal government and his employer.

The judge pointed out that Souders’s case hinges not on contract violations but on allegations of violations of his First Amendment rights. Souders argues that his firing was a direct retaliation for exercising his freedom of speech.

Kelly referenced a similar case from 2009, where a contractor lost her job after protesting the Iraq War on social media. The court maintained that retaliation by the government through its contracting power does not convert an individual’s claim into a mere contract dispute.

“What matters is whether the Constitution forbids it,” he wrote, underscoring the foundational principle of free speech in the context of government employment.

Additionally, the judge dismissed the government’s claim that Souders had not provided sufficient facts to support his lawsuit. He commented on the brevity of the government’s argument on that issue, stating, “The Court will decline to do the government’s work for it.”

The backdrop of this case lies in the aftermath of Kirk’s shooting death on September 10, 2025, during a college event in Orem, Utah. Souders shared comments on Facebook labeling Kirk with derogatory terms, which gained traction on social media the following day.

Following the incident, communications between defense officials revealed that Souders’s comments were considered inappropriate, indicating a swift response from government personnel.

Just a day after a deputy assistant secretary of defense flagged Souders’s comments, his employer informed him that the federal government ordered his dismissal, citing the harmful nature of his social media activity.

Despite admitting to the comments, Souders’s attorney, Mark Zaid, maintains that it remains unclear which specific posts led to his client’s firing. Zaid has argued that the case exposes broader issues of governmental overreach and censorship.

“This case addresses a much broader issue than just one plaintiff,” Zaid said, noting significant implications for free speech rights under the previous administration.

As the litigation unfolds, Souders seeks not just to restore his job with the Coast Guard but also to challenge what he perceives as unconstitutional efforts to suppress private speech by government contractors.

This legal battle may resonate with a wider audience who value the protection of constitutional rights in the face of government retaliation, particularly within the realm of public discourse.

Hegseth’s involvement, alongside other officials conducting oversight of military communications, further complicates the matter as it reflects internal pressures within government ranks regarding personnel conduct online.

Moving forward, the case could set essential legal precedents regarding the intersection of employment, social media, and First Amendment rights, particularly for federal contractors navigating volatile political landscapes.

The implications of this case extend beyond Souders, sparking vital discussions about free speech rights and government influence in employees’ personal lives.