Veterans Advocacy
Justice for Veterans
Fighting a Naturalization Mandate
In October 2024, Sidley filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on behalf of 10 veterans’ organizations who have joined together in opposition to a U.S. Department of Defense policy enforcing a one-year service requirement before noncitizen service members can apply for citizenship during wartime.
The brief examined text, history, and public policy to argue that — in recognition of noncitizen service members’ vital contributions and for the good of the military itself — Congress intended for noncitizen service members to be eligible for prompt naturalization during periods of armed conflict. Sidley argued that, by designing the statutory scheme in this manner, Congress enhanced military readiness while protecting foreign-born servicemembers from unique risks, including post-deployment deportation. Finally, the brief observed that the DOD’s desired policy change would disrupt a decades-long practice which had no discernible downside for the military or its service members.
Righting a Historic Wrong: Port Chicago
Sidley is representing the descendants of two U.S. Navy sailors who are pursuing posthumous honorable discharges in connection with the Port Chicago disaster in California during World War II. On July 17, 1944, a massive explosion at the port killed 320 people and injured 400 more. Three weeks after the explosion, the Navy released a report blaming the Black sailors of Port Chicago for the accident. When the 258 surviving Black sailors, including Jack Crittenden and Cyril Sheppard, were asked to continue loading munitions without any additional training or changes to the Navy ordnance safety protocol, they refused. Of the 258 sailors who refused to continue loading munitions, 208 eventually returned to work under threat, while 50 were tried and convicted of mutiny and disobeying a lawful order. As a result of their convictions, the “Port Chicago 50” were denied honorable discharges, and received hard labor, demotions, and lost wages.
In July 2024, exactly 80 years after the explosion, the Navy exonerated all of the 258 sailors. On the heels of the exoneration, Sidley is working with Hiram Crittenden, Jack Crittenden’s son, and Carol Cherry, Cyril Sheppard’s daughter, to correct their fathers’ discharge paperwork. Together with the Port Chicago Alliance, the Sidley team is preparing applications to the Board for Correction of Naval Records to right this injustice that disadvantaged both men and their families.
Advocating for Combat-Wounded Veterans
Following an adverse federal appellate ruling, Sidley recently secured a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a class of veterans in Soto v. United States. Working together with the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), Sidley has been representing Simon Soto, a former U.S. Marine, and a class of more than 9,000 veterans denied the full extent of their retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Congress made CRSC available specifically for veterans whose disabilities are “combat-related,” but the Federal Circuit held that the veterans’ retroactive benefits were limited to six years under the Barring Act. The U.S. Supreme Court will review that decision by the Federal Circuit, and heard oral arguments in April. The decision will have a significant impact on the lives of veterans who were injured serving their country.
Soto enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in August 2000. During his first two tours in Iraq, he served in a mortuary affairs unit, a role that required him to “search for, recover, and process the remains of war casualties.” Beginning in December 2005, he was treated for what was later diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In April 2006, he was medically retired from active duty.
In 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered summary judgment on behalf of the class in Soto, ordering the military to make full payment to all veterans whose CRSC payment amounts were limited by improper application of the Barring Act and were owed less than $10,000.
