Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Erin Smith, the Associate Counsel at First Liberty Institute and Dr. Stephen O. Presley, the Senior Fellow for Religion and Public Life at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.
A dream vacation to Hawaii turned into a legal nightmare for one of America’s finest soldiers.
Major Jace Yarbrough’s story began on the deck of the USS Missouri in Pearl Harbor, at a small, private retirement ceremony in June 2021. Yarbrough—an Air Force Reserve officer and civilian attorney—was there at the invitation of a close friend, Senior Master Sergeant Duane Fish, to deliver remarks honoring his service. The gathering was small—just 25 people, mostly family and friends—and Yarbrough was off-duty, unpaid, and acting as a civilian.
Yarbrough honored his dear friend with a speech that praised Fish’s integrity, warned about politicization in the military, and quoted Christian writer and Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Drawing on Solzhenitsyn’s call to “live not by lies,” Yarbrough also gave two blunt examples: “men can’t birth babies” and “boys shouldn’t be in girls’ locker rooms.” Some attendees liked it. But one Navy musician did not—and filed a complaint.
What followed is the heart of this case: While Yarbrough was at home in Texas, still in civilian status, his Space Force supervisor sent him a Letter of Admonishment (LOA). The LOA accused him of being “insubordinate, disrespectful, and unbecoming of an officer.” The military cited an Air Force instruction—DAFI 36-2907—and claimed that it could punish reservists even when they’re completely off-duty.
Recommended
Yarbrough appealed all the way up the chain of command, arguing that the military had no jurisdiction over a civilian’s speech and that his words were protected by the First Amendment. Every appeal was denied. The Air Force stood by its position: even off-duty reservists, out of uniformed control, can be punished for speech the military finds objectionable.
The irony is that Solzhenitsyn, like many others in the history of the Christian church, faced similar persecution at the hands of civil authorities. All the way back in the third century, a church leader named Tertullian tells the story of a Christian soldier who was persecuted by Roman authorities for refusing to wear a crown that symbolized allegiance to a pagan emperor. Unfortunately, sometimes even our country, though founded upon the First Amendment, resembles these pagan authorities, or even the communist Soviet regimes like the one Solzhenitsyn struggled under.
How far does this kind of censuring go? By stretching internal regulations to reach into a civilian’s living room, the Air Force risks creating a precedent where honorable military service becomes a 24/7 leash on thought and speech. If the military can punish a reservist for something said at a private event, could they discipline someone for a Facebook post? For a letter to the editor? For volunteering with a political group?
The case of Yarbrough v. United States Space Force raises a fundamental question: Do reservists, in their purely civilian capacity, enjoy the same constitutional protections as every other American? Or does wearing the uniform part-time forever tether one’s private speech to military jurisdiction?
This isn’t just about one man’s speech or a dispute over propriety at a retirement ceremony. It’s about the scope of military power in a republic—whether the government can treat part-time service members as if they’re on duty 24/7. Federal law says reservists are only under military authority when they’re activated, training, or being paid. That’s not just red tape—it’s a safeguard to keep military power in check. This bright line is a safeguard that protects citizens from the constant reach of military authority.
The chilling effect is real. Yarbrough says he now hesitates before engaging in public advocacy, even as a private attorney. Supporters of the LOA may argue that an officer’s words, uniformed or not, always reflects on the service. But that logic wholly disregards the First Amendment. The answer to controversial speech—especially from a private speaker—is more speech, not military discipline.
The federal court’s decision in Jace’s case will set a precedent for hundreds of thousands of reservists. Upholding the reprimand would shrink the boundary between civilian life and military control. Overturning it would reaffirm a basic truth: When you’re off-duty and out of uniformed command, your rights as an American remain fully intact.
The deck of the Missouri was the site where World War II ended, symbolizing the triumph of freedom. It is fitting, then, that it may also be remembered as the place where a modern struggle over the limits of government power—and the rights of those who wear the uniform—began. Sadly, until Congress or the court sets the record straight, it now serves as a backdrop for the erosion of that very ideal.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member