Moving of Confederate Monument Did Not Violate Plaintiffs' Religious Rights

In Edgerton v. City of St. Augustine, (MD FL, March 20, 2023), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiffs' challenges to the city's moving a monument honoring Confederate Civil War veterans from City Park to a new location.  Among other things, the court rejected Establishment Clause and Free Exercise challenges, saying in part:

Plaintiffs allege that "the message [the monument] conveyed has changed over time[,] which demonstrates why the removal of it. . . appears hostile and offensive to those who use it for moments of respect, prayer, and remembrance of those long gone." ... Plaintiffs do not allege the City considered any of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs when it decided to remove and relocate the monument. Additionally, Plaintiffs provide no allegations of historical practices or understandings of similar instances of a city removing a monument, and such removal amounting to an Establishment Clause violation.

... Mr. Edgerton "expressed his religious beliefs by paying respect to the dead [soldiers] by praying at and protecting the 'empty tomb' of his 'Southern family[.]"... Mr. Ross alleges that he "had participated in prayer at the site" of the monument, but since it has been relocated, his ability to continue doing so is "nearly impossible."... Ms. Pacetti alleges that she "has freely exercised her right to Christian memorial expression of her deceased family member at the Plaza next to the [m]onument[.]"... Mr. Parham alleges that he "continued to visit the [m]onument after his father's death . . . exercising his religious memorial expressions.",,,

Accepting these allegations as true, Plaintiffs do not state a plausible violation of their Free Exercise rights. Plaintiffs can still exercise any and all of the beliefs they have alleged.... Plaintiffs do not allege facts that the City relocated the monument because of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs....

11th Circuit En Banc Upholds School Policy Assigning Restrooms on Basis of Biological Sex

In Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a 7-4 decision held that separating use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on students' biological sex does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. The six opinions filed in the case span 150 pages.  A 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision had previously ruled to the contrary. The majority opinion on en banc review said in part:

The School Board’s bathroom policy is clearly related to—indeed, is almost a mirror of—its objective of protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur. Therefore, the School Board’s bathroom policy satisfies intermediate scrutiny.

The district court avoided this conclusion only by misconstruing the privacy interests at issue and the bathroom policy employed.... [T]he bathroom policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of biological sex....

The policy impacts approximately 0.04 percent of the students within the School District—i.e., sixteen transgender students out of 40,000 total students—in a manner unforeseen when the bathroom policy was implemented. And to accommodate that small percentage, while at the same time taking into account the privacy interests of the other students in the School District, the School Board authorized the use of sex-neutral bathrooms as part of its Best Practices Guidelines for LGBTQ issues....

Contrary to the dissent’s claim, the School Board, through the Best Practices Guidelines, did not discriminatorily “single[] out transgender students.” ... The School Board sought to accommodate transgender students by providing them with an alternative—i.e., sex-neutral bathrooms—and not requiring them to use the bathrooms that match their biological sex— i.e., the bathroom policy Adams challenges.... Ultimately, there is no evidence of purposeful discrimination against transgender students by the School Board, and any disparate impact that the bathroom policy has on those students does not violate the Constitution.

Judge Lagoa filed an opinion Specially Concurring, saying in part:

 I write separately to discuss the effect that a departure from a biological understanding of “sex” under Title IX—i.e., equating “sex” to “gender identity” or “transgender status”—would have on girls’ and women’s rights and sports.

Judge Wilson dissented, saying in part:

Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy ... is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended documentation because a student’s sex does not change. This presumption is both medically and scientifically flawed....

The case of intersex students therefore proves that a privacy concern rooted in a thin conception of biological sex is untenable.

Judge Jordan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Wilson and Rosenbaum, saying in part:

[T]he School Board’s policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys’ bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy concerns as Drew, the School Board’s bathroom policy can only be justified by administrative convenience.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I join Judge Jordan’s dissent in its entirety and Judge Jill Pryor’s dissent’s equal-protection analysis. I write separately only to emphasize one point ...: the Majority Opinion’s misplaced suggestions that affirming the district court’s order on equal-protection grounds would require courts in this Circuit to find that all challenges involving restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities must necessarily be upheld are wrong.

Judge Jill Pryor filed a dissenting opinion (which Judge Rosenbaum joined as to her equal protection analysis) saying said in part:

In contrast to transgender students, all cisgender students are permitted to use the restroom matching their gender identity. The policy, therefore, facially discriminates against transgender students by depriving them of a benefit that is provided to all cisgender students. It places all transgender students on one side of a line, and all cisgender students on the other side. The School District cannot hide beyond facially neutral-sounding terms like “biological sex.” As the Supreme Court has observed, “neutral terms can mask discrimination that is unlawful.”...

[T]he bathroom policy’s assignment of Adams to the girls’ restrooms would actually undermine the abstract privacy interest the School District wished to promote. While he attended Nease and was excluded from the boys’ bathrooms, Adams had “facial hair,” “typical male muscle development,” a deep voice, and a short haircut.... He had no visible breast tissue; his chest appeared flat. He wore masculine clothing. Any occupant of the girls’ restroom would have seen a boy entering the restroom when Adams walked in. Thus, the district court found, “permitting him to use the girls’ restroom would be unsettling for all the same reasons the School District does not want any other boy in the girls’ restroom.”...

The School District’s policy categorically assigned transgender students, including Adams, to bathrooms based on only one biological marker: their sex assigned at birth. Adams’s claim that the School District’s notion of what “sex” means is discriminatory is not foreclosed by the Title IX carveouts....

Law & Crime reports on the decision. 

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies Categorically to Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Rivera v. Diocese of Venice in Florida, Inc., (SD FL., Dec. 12, 2022), a Florida federal district court dismissed under the ministerial exception doctrine a suit by the former principal of a Catholic elementary/ middle school who alleged that a racially motivated hostile work environment led him to resign his position. Plaintiff, who is black, was repeatedly the subject of racial harassment by the priest of the school's parish. The court said in part:

The principal question presented is whether the ministerial exception categorically bars hostile work environment claims under Title VII and FCRA. As further explored below, this is an issue of constitutional interpretation not yet specifically addressed by the Eleventh Circuit....

[T]he Court concludes that the ministerial exception categorically bars Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims....

To determine whether a minister's claim of hostile work environment proceeds based on the degree to which a court believes the fact-specific allegations require excessive entanglement with a church's internal governance is itself to promote and risk excessive entanglement and interference with a church's authority to supervise and manage its ministers. Put another way, the reason why a functional approach is necessary to resolve the threshold question of "minister status" is also one of the reasons why applying the ministerial exception to claims of hostile work environment is necessary to respect the First Amendment. The opposite rule would thrust courts into examining the inner workings of a church's supervision and management of its clergy—the precise harm the ministerial exception seeks to protect. Therefore, Court declines Plaintiff's "nuanced" invitation to treat "non-terminal employment claims" of hostile work environment differently than "tangible" claims of employment discrimination brought by ministers....

[S]hould the Eleventh Circuit disagree with the Court's "categorical" determination or otherwise decide that no such ruling is necessary on these facts, the Court concludes in the alternative that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint merits dismissal because it clearly contains allegations that trigger excessive entanglement into the church's internal governance and supervision of its ministers.

Florida Education Department Adopts Two Rules On LGBTQ Concerns

 As reported by the Washington Blade, the Florida Department of Education on Wednesday by a unanimous vote adopted two rules relating to LGBTQ issues.  New Rule 6A-10.086 (full text) provides in part:

If a school board or charter school governing board has a policy or procedure that allows for separation of bathrooms or locker rooms according to some criteria other than biological sex at birth, the policy or procedure must be posted on the district’s website or charter school’s website, and must be sent by mail to student residences to fully inform parents.

Amendments to Rule 6A-10.081 (full text) provides that Florida teachers:

Shall not intentionally provide classroom instruction to students in kindergarten through grade 3 on sexual orientation or gender identity....

Violation of the rule can lead to suspension or revocation of a teacher's certificate. 

City's Harassment Of Private Prayer Services In Rabbi's Home Violated 1st Amendment

In Congregation 3401 Prairie Bais Yeshaya D'Kerestir, Inc. v. City of Miami, (SD FL, Oct. 6, 2022), a Florida federal district court refused to dismiss claims that city officials' harassment of a rabbi's home that hosted daily minyans (prayer services) for invited guests violated the 1st Amendment.  Private groups worshiping in a person's home are permitted in residential areas under the city's zoning code. The court said in part:

Defendant, wielding the City Code "like a club" ... issued multiple erroneous citations against Plaintiff for zoning code violations...; sent City personnel to the Property a staggering 126 times...; installed a surveillance camera that monitors only the Property ...; conducted at least one warrantless search...; and otherwise singled Plaintiffs out for harassment.... These events have had "a chilling effect on Plaintiff[s'] First Amendment Rights."... . Defendant's conduct, at least as alleged, could certainly "chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment rights."  [Quote updated.]

Pastor's Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Weems v. Celebration Church of Jacksonville, Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., Sept. 28, 2022), a Florida state trial court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation lawsuit by the former pastor of Celebration Church. At issue is a report growing out of an internal investigation of the pastor commissioned by church trustees.

Plaintiffs’ current pleading invites this Court’s entanglement into Celebration Church’s internal matters....

In order to determine whether Celebration Church defamed Pastor Weems as currently alleged, this Court would need look to the time Pastor Weems was employed by the Church to see whether he did or did not partake in the actions as alleged by the Church and whether those actions were forbidden by the Church's bylaws and other internal policies.

Florida Times-Union reports on the decision.

11th Circuit: City Council Invocation Is Government Speech

In Gundy v. City of Jacksonville Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of appeals held that an invocation opening a city council meeting delivered by Reginald Gundy, a pastor invited by a member of Council, is government speech.  At issue is a suit by the pastor whose microphone was cut off in the middle of his invocation by the city council president who concluded that the invocation had crossed over into a political attack. The court concluded that the pastor's suit should be dismissed, saying in part:

Mr. Gundy's appeal centers on the fact that he brought counts against Mr. Bowman and the City based on alleged violations of his free speech and free exercise rights under the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

As a threshold and dispositive matter, ... we hold that the district court erred in deeming the invocation private speech in a nonpublic forum instead of government speech. And since Mr. Gundy did not allege a violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause, which is the proper constitutional vehicle to attack the government speech at issue here, his appeal must fail.

Musicians Sue Over Denial Of Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate

A Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court by three musicians who have religious objections to COVID vaccines. They were placed on partial-paid leave by their private employer, an arts organization that operates the Naples Philharmonic, when they refused to comply with the employer's vaccine mandate.  The complaint (full text) in Leigh v. Artis-Naples, Inc., (MD FL, filed 9/21/2022), alleges in part:

Artis-Naples implemented an illegal policy that no exemption or accommodation would or could be granted to any employee who had to be present onsite to perform their job....

Artis-Naples irrationally and pretextually argues that accommodating unvaccinated employees who follow alternative preventative measures would place an “undue hardship” on its operations—specifically, that unvaccinated employees present “a direct threat” of infection to patrons and coworkers....

Florida law requires Artis-Naples to exempt Plaintiffs from the Mandate....

As a matter of law, it can never be an “undue hardship” for an employer to comply with the state law and public policy.

11th Circuit: No Liability For Withdrawing Permission For Religious Group To Use After School Classrooms

In Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (11th Cir., Sept. 8, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district Court' dismissal of free exercise, equal protection and due process claims brought by a Jewish organization that ran a popular after-school Hebrew program for more than ten years using public school classrooms. In 2019, after a complaint and investigation of whether Chabad complied with the rules for use of school facilities without paying a fee, the Miami-Dade County superintendent withdrew permission for Chabad use of school classrooms. Chabad sued. The court held that plaintiff had not shown the elements necessary to assert liability against either the school board or the Inspector General's office that investigated complaints against Chabad.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar Suit Over Compliance With Non-Profit Corporation Law

 In Auguste v. Hyacinthe, (FL App., Sept. 7, 2022), a Florida state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not bar the court's deciding whether defendants violated provisions of the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act.  After the founding pastor of a Baptist church died, the congregation split into two factions.  Plaintiffs allege that after defendant was removed as a director, he continued to purport to act on behalf of the church by filing annual reports with the state, falsely listing members of his faction as officers and falsely removing others. Plaintiffs allege that he also, without proper notice, held a secret meeting with some church members and executed a false resolution claiming that other of the directors were expelled. The court said in part:

Count I alleged that Hyacinthe violated section 617.0808, Florida Statutes (2018), regarding removal of directors. Count II alleged that Tibois violated the same statute. Count III alleged that Appellees violated chapter 617 in holding secret meetings....

Appellants’ counts I-III did not raise claims that would necessarily require the trial court to decide which faction of the Church has control or seek resolution of questions regarding the Church’s governance. Instead, we conclude counts I-III raise issues of the propriety of actions of the board of trustees, board of directors, or corporate officials of a corporation under chapter 617, Florida Statutes....

Conversely, we determine that the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ count IV – raising a cause of action for conversion against Appellees.... Appellants’ count IV would necessarily require the trial court to determine which faction controlled the Church....

Clergy Sue Challenging Florida's Abortion Restrictions

The Washington Post reports that in Florida, seven members of the clergy-- Christian, Jewish, Unitarian-Universalist and Buddhist-- have filed lawsuits contending that Florida's 15-week abortion ban violates their free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause rights. Typical of the lawsuits is the complaint (full text) in Hafner v. State of Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/1/2022), filed by a pastor of the United Church of Christ.  It alleges in part:

 59. The Act establishes as the law of the State of Florida, a particular and narrow religious view about abortion and when “life” begins. This view is contrary to the religious beliefs of Plaintiff and the UCC, which does not necessarily make a claim regarding when “life” begins, but instead, centers on the mother’s right to have a choice, oversee her own body, and make her own decisions.

60. The Act further provides for no exceptions for the psychological health of the mother or family, non-fatal fetal abnormalities, or victims of incest, rape, or trafficking, which are all circumstances in which the UCC would, amongst other circumstances, support a girl or woman’s decision to have an abortion before or after fifteen weeks....

65. Plaintiff’s beliefs are consistent with the UCC principles set forth above and, as a result, the Act substantially burdens the exercise of her religious faith because it hampers her ability to counsel congregants and speak freely on reproductive rights and issues and burdens her congregants’ ability to seek counsel from their religious leader.

Here is the complaint in a similar suit filed by three rabbis (Pomerantz v. State of Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/1/2022).

UPDATE: Here is the complaint in Chotso v. State of Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 8/1/2022), filed by a Buddhist Lama.

11th Circuit Remands Establishment Clause Case That Had Relied On Lemon Test

In Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida, (11th Cir., July 22, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's Establishment Clause decision that had relied on the now-repudiated Lemon test. In the case, plaintiffs who are atheists and humanists sued, challenging a prayer vigil that was co-sponsored by the Ocala police department held in response to a shooting spree that had injured several children. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.  On appeal, the court said in part:

When the district court granted summary judgment, it believed that the analytical framework articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman ... was the controlling law. Even though many Justices soured on Lemon over the years, the Court seemingly could not rid itself of that much-maligned decision. Justice Scalia colorfully described Lemon as “[l]ike some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.”...

After this appeal was filed, however, the Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the ghoul and told us that the Lemon test is gone, buried for good, never again to sit up in its grave. Finally and unambiguously, the Court has “abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. ... (2022)....

[T]he Supreme Court has definitively decided that Lemon is dead — long live historical practices and understandings....

We remand this case to the district court to give it an opportunity to apply in the first instance the historical practices and understandings standard endorsed in Kennedy.

11th Circuit Denies En Banc Review In Conversion Therapy Case

In Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, (11th Cir., July 20, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 7-4,, denied an en banc rehearing in a case in which a panel decision of the court struck down a conversion therapy ban.  (See prior posting). Concurring and dissenting opinions spanning 110 pages accompanied the brief order denying review. Judge Grant, joined by Judges Branch and Lagoa filed an opinion concurring in the denial, saying in part:

The perspective enforced by these local policies is extremely popular in many communities. And the speech barred by these ordinances is rejected by many as wrong, and even dangerous. But the First Amendment applies even to—especially to—speech that is widely unpopular....

Today’s dissenters decry the result of the panel decision—namely, that speech they consider harmful is (or may be) constitutionally protected. But to reach their preferred outcomes, they ask us to ignore settled First Amendment law

Judge Jordan joined by Judge Wilson, and joined in part by Judges Rosenbaum and Pryor, said in part:

[T]he panel majority in this preliminary injunction appeal ignored the clear error standard of review—never acknowledging or applying it —and substituted its own factual findings for those of the district court on important issues.

Judge Rosenbaum joined by Judge Pryor filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part

By incorrectly labeling talk therapy mental-healthcare treatments as mere “conversation” and “not medical at all,” the panel opinion necessarily subjects to First Amendment strict scrutiny all government regulations that require licensed mental-healthcare professionals to comply with the governing substantive standard of care in administering talk therapy. And that scrutiny rings the death knell for any such regulation.

Florida Judge Says 15-Week Abortion Ban Violates State Constitution

Palm Beach Post and Florida ACLU report that yesterday, a Florida state circuit court judge ruled from the bench that Florida's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy violates the Florida Constitution's protection of the right of privacy. However the judge has not yet issued a formal written opinion or entered a preliminary injunction, so the 15 week ban will go into effect today until an injunction actually issues.

Portable Sign Ban Violates First Amendment

 In LaCroix v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, (11th Cir., June 28, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals preliminarily enjoined a town's ban on all portable signs. The ordinance was challenged by plaintiff who was cited for carrying a sign on a public sidewalk that conveyed his "religious, political and social message" that Christianity offers hope and salvation. The court said in part:

The Ordinance’s ban on portable signs is content-neutral. But portable, handheld signs still are a rich part of the American political tradition and are one of the most common (if not the most common) methods of free expression. The ban on these signs leaves the residents of Fort Myers Beach without an effective alternative channel of communication; it very likely violates the First Amendment.

WINK News reports on the decision.

Synagogue Sues In Challenge To Florida's Restrictive Abortion Law

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court by a Palm Beach County synagogue challenging Florida's recently enacted 15-week abortion ban. The complaint (full text) in Generation to Generation, Inc. v. Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/10/2022) contends that the law violates the free exercise, establishment, right to privacy, due process and equal protection provisions of the Florida Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

40. Some women, such as the members, congregants, supporters of Plaintiff L’Dor Va-Dor and their families have an abortion because it is required by their religious faith.  For Jews, all life is precious and thus the decision to bring new life into the world is not taken lightly or determined by state fiat.  In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.  As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.....

71. The Jewish people have often borne the brunt of the horrors that occur when the power of Christianity has merged with the power of the state.  The result has been Inquisitions, Crusades, ghettoes and pogroms for the Jews and the eventual loss of freedom for everyone else.... 

72.  The architects of the Act have taken a first step towards the dismantling of that wall and returning the state of Florida and our nation back to a time when the merger of Christianity and government produced genocide, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of equal rights and in many cases, any rights at all to those who did not share the gender, race or religion of those in power.

Jews for a Secular Democracy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: Jail's Procedure For Passover Participation Is Upheld

In Dorman v. Chaplain's Office BSO, (11th Cir., June 10, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the procedures used by the Broward County, Florida jail that required inmates to register 45 days in advance in order to participate in Passover services and meals.  The court said in part:

First, the 45-day registration requirement did not constitute a substantial burden on Mr. Dorman’s exercise of his Jewish faith under the RLUIPA, and therefore it also did not violate the First Amendment’s more lenient reasonableness standard. Second, the electronic posting of the 45-day registration requirement on the Jail’s computer kiosk, which he and other inmates used to communicate with Jail staff, provided adequate notice of the registration requirement to satisfy due process.

11th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In City Prayer Vigil Case

 Yesterday, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida. In the case, , a Florida federal district court held that the City of Ocala, Florida and its police chief violated the Establishment Clause when they organized and promoted a prayer vigil in response to a shooting spree plaguing the city. (See prior posting.) Fox35 reports on the case ahead of the oral arguments.

Ban On Prayer Over PA System At High School Playoffs Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc., (MD FL, March 31, 2022), in a case on remand from the 11th Circuit, a Florida federal district court held that the Florida High School Athletic Association did not violate the 1st Amendment rights of a Christian school when it refused to allow it to broadcast a pre-game prayer over the PA system at a state championship playoff against another Christian school. The court said in part:

This case is not about whether two Christian schools may pray together at a football game....  [P]layers and coaches from both teams, along with some officials, met at the 50-yard line of the Citrus Bowl to pray together before the game and again on the sidelines after the game.... But they were not permitted to deliver their prayer over the PA system during the pregame....

Addressing plaintiff's free speech claims, the court said in part:

[P]regame speech over the PA system at the championship finals football game hosted by the FHSAA at a state-owned venue is government speech....

Even if some of the speech conducted over the PA system at the 2015 2A State Championship Final football game could be classified as private speech, the FHSAA’s viewpoint neutral regulation of the speech in the nonpublic forum was not unconstitutional....

Here, no one else was permitted to speak over the PA system during the pregame except the announcer, and pursuant to a predetermined script, which did not include speech and viewpoints of other groups, organizations, or religions....

Also, rejecting free exercise claims, the court said in part: 

On the facts of this case, the Court concludes that communal pregame prayer over the PA system is a preference of CCS’s, not a deeply rooted tradition that rises to the level of a sincerely held belief.

11th Circuit Grants Limited Stay Of Injunction Against Navy's Vaccine Mandate

In Navy SEAL 1 v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense, (11th Cir., March 30, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a limited stay of a Florida district court's preliminary injunction granted to two service members who objected on religious grounds to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The court allowed the Navy to consider the plaintiffs’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions while appeals are pending. However the court refused to stay the injunction more broadly. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.