Advocacy Group Says Military Commanders Are Describing Iran Operations in Christian Biblical Terms

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy organization dedicated to assuring church-state separation in the armed forces, reported yesterday that it has received numerous complaints from military personnel that, in briefings, their commanders are describing the military operations against Iran in Christian eschatological terms. According to a report on Substack by journalist Jonathan Larsen:

A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.

From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

The complaints came from more than 40 different units spread across at least 30 military installations, the MRFF told me Monday night.

EEOC Says Federal Agencies May Base Restroom Access on Biological Sex

 In a February 26 press release, the EEOC announced:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 today to approve a federal sector appellate decision adjudicating an appeal regarding access to intimate spaces, including bathrooms and locker rooms, in federal workplaces under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended....

 “Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “When it comes to bathrooms, male and female employees are not similarly situated. Biology is not bigotry.”

When adjudicating appeals of alleged employment discrimination in the federal sector, the EEOC applies longstanding precedent, including relevant Supreme Court decisions, to the facts of the case. In this case, however, such precedent does not exist, as federal courts have not determined whether Title VII requires employers to permit trans-identifying employees to access bathrooms and other intimate spaces otherwise reserved for the opposite sex. In the absence of authoritative court precedent, the EEOC used the traditional tools of statutory construction, turning first to the ordinary meaning of the statute’s text and ensuring that the decision is further anchored by the Supreme Court’s precedents in comparable areas of law.

In applying the traditional tools of statutory construction, the EEOC found that Title VII permits a federal agency employer to maintain single-sex bathrooms and similar intimate spaces; and permits a federal agency employer to exclude employees, including trans-identifying employees, from opposite sex-facilities. Today’s opinion overturns a prior EEOC federal sector appellate decision (Lusardi v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (2015)) with respect to the portion of that opinion addressing a federal employee’s access to an opposite-sex bathroom based on “gender identity.”

As with all of the EEOC’s appellate decisions adjudicating federal agency employment discrimination complaints, this decision applies only to federal agencies subject to the EEOC’s administrative complaint process for federal employees. It does not apply to private sector employers, nor does it bind any federal court.

The Agency's action approved a 23-page Federal Sector Appellate Decision, Selina S. v. Driscoll, (EEOC Federal Sector Appeal, Feb. 26, 2026), a case brought by a civilian employee of the Army.

Religious Liberty Commission Hears Testimony on Religious Liberty in the Military

Yesterday, the federal Religious Liberty Commission held a hearing on Religious Liberty in the Military. The Announcement of the hearing said in part:

The hearing’s objective will be to understand the historic landscape of religious liberty in military, recognize present threats to religious liberty in military contexts, and identify opportunities to strengthen religious liberty for all servicemembers for the future.

 A video recording of the full 2 1/2 hour hearing is available at this link.

Taxpayer With Religious Objections to U.S. Funding of Israel's Military Operations Lacks Standing to Sue

In Kikkert v. Trump, (WD WA, Oct. 1, 2025), plaintiff, an army veteran and federal taxpayer, sued the President and various members of Congress. According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges that by using federal taxes to fund Israel’s recent military operations, Defendants have breached numerous international treaties, federal statutes, and provisions of the U.S. Constitution....  Plaintiff further alleges that he has standing to bring this suit, claiming that his “$72.72 in 2023 excise taxes are part of the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel” and said aid is “causing Plaintiff irreparable spiritual harm by forcing him to contravene his faith and his veteran’s oath to defend the Constitution, a sacred text in his religion, and desecrating his familial legal of military service spanning give generations.” 

The court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, saying in part:

... [T]he mere fact of being a taxpayer is not enough to establish Article III standing.  The only exception to this general rule is a narrow exception provided by Flast v. Cohen....  But the Supreme Court has also “repeatedly emphasized that the Flast exception has a narrow application”...

... Flast and its progeny are primarily focused on Establishment Clause challenges.... Here, however, Plaintiff does not bring an Establishment Clause challenge....

As for his Free Exercise argument, Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts to give rise to Article III standing....

Plaintiff’s claim that the government’s funding of Israeli military operations using federal taxes operations has “force[d] him to commit sacrilege” and is causing “irreparable spiritual distress,” ... does not amount to an alleged injury to his ability to exercise his religion.  It is thus insufficient to establish Article III injury-in-fact.

Supreme Court Allows Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in Military to Remain in Effect While Appeals Move Forward

In United States v. Shilling, (Sup. Ct., May 6, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 granted a stay while appeals to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court move forward of a preliminary injunction that, had it remained in effect, would have disqualified transgender individuals from serving in the military.  The Supreme Court's one-paragraph order stays the preliminary injunction granted in Shilling v. United States, (WD WA, March 27, 2025). The district court in granting the injunction had said:

The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting “the military’s” new judgment reflected in the Military Ban—in its equally considered and unquestionable judgment, that very same military had only the week before permitted active-duty plaintiffs (and some thousands of others) to serve openly. Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none.

In its Application for a Stay of the Injunction, the military had argued in part:

Absent a stay, the district court’s universal injunction will remain in place for the duration of further review in the Ninth Circuit and in this Court—a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests.

NBC News reports on the Supreme Court's order.

Court Enjoins Implementation of Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in the Military

In Talbott v. United States, (D DC, March 18, 2025), the United States federal district court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction barring the military from implementing Executive Orders and military memoranda that exclude transgender persons from serving in the military. The injunction requires the military to maintain the pre-Trump status quo on military service by transgender individuals. Explaining its decision, the court's 79-page opinion said in part:

The Court agrees that “courts [are] ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have” and that “the military authorities [not courts] have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out our Nation’s military policy.”... Often, courts accept “the reasoned, professional analysis of Congress and the Executive on matters strictly within the realm of military expertise.”...   

Defendants carry deference too far, however.  By “defer” they basically mean the Court must side with the military’s position, end-stop.  And they contend the Court must defer even if the judgment, as here, does not make sense....

The Court ... applies Bostock’s reasoning to analyze the Military Ban.  In doing so, it does not “import[] the Title VII test for liability,” ... into the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.  Rather, it borrows Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning to conclude that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination for purposes of the equal protection inquiry....

... [B]ecause the Military Ban targets transgender persons for disparate treatment, it creates an explicit sex-based classification that requires application of intermediate scrutiny. ...

The court also concluded that the Military Ban is subject to intermediate scrutiny because transgender persons should be considered a quasi-suspect class. The court went on:

Defendants have articulated important government objectives in military readiness, unit cohesion, and saving costs.  But the Fifth Amendment requires more than pointing to such “broadly formulated interests.”...  Defendants must show that the discriminatory Military Ban is in some way substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.  And they must do so without relying on “overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” ... They do not come close.  Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban fails intermediate scrutiny review.....

The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.  Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.  Thus, even if the Court analyzed the Military Ban under rational basis review, it would fail....

The Court could stop here in its analysis and comfortably conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban is motivated by animus and is not tailored to meet its stated goals.  But, as they say, there is more, for the Military Ban does not stand alone.  President Trump has signed an executive order recognizing the existence of only two sexes; blocked schools from using federal funds to promote the idea that gender can be fluid; directed the State Department to stop issuing documents that allow a third “X” gender marker; changed references to “LGBTQI+” on government websites to “LGB,” erasing not just transgender persons, but intersex people as well; revoked the ability of transgender federal employees to receive gender-affirming care; and directed that all incarcerated transgender persons be denied medical treatments and be housed by birth sex, where they are nine times more susceptible to violence....

NPR reports on the decision.

Military Ends Travel Reimbursements to Service Members and Dependents for Out-of-State Abortions

In a January 29 Memorandum (full text), the Department of Defense removed the section of the military's Joint Travel Regulations that permit travel and transportation allowances for service members and their dependents to obtain abortions and other reproductive health care when it is not lawfully available in the local area where they are stationed. The travel allowance policy was announced in 2023. (See prior posting.) The policy was removed in accordance with President Trump's Executive Order, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment. (See prior posting.) The Hill reports on these developments.

Executive Order Encourages School Choice

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order (full text) titled Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families. The Executive Order focuses on methods for expanding the availability of school choice. It says in part:

When our public education system fails such a large segment of society, it hinders our national competitiveness and devastates families and communities.  For this reason, more than a dozen States have enacted universal K-12 scholarship programs, allowing families — rather than the government — to choose the best educational setting for their children.  These States have highlighted the most promising avenue for education reform:  educational choice for families and competition for residentially assigned, government-run public schools....

... It is the policy of my Administration to support parents in choosing and directing the upbringing and education of their children....

...  [T]he Secretary of Education shall issue guidance regarding how States can use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives....

... [T]he Secretary of Defense shall review any available mechanisms under which military-connected families may use funds from the Department of Defense to attend schools of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms....

[T]he Secretary of the Interior shall review any available mechanisms under which families of students eligible to attend BIE [Bureau of Indian Education] schools may use their Federal funding for educational options of their choice, including private, faith-based, or public charter schools, and submit a plan to the President describing such mechanisms....

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

National Guard Officer Sues After Dismissal for His Religion-Based Anti-LGBTQ Views

Suit was filed last week in an Idaho federal district court by an Idaho National Guard officer who was removed from a command position that he had just assumed because of his Christian religious views on sexuality that he had expressed during his previous campaigns for mayor and state senator. The complaint (full text) in Worley v. Little, (D ID, filed 1/17/2025), reads in part:

74. The Investigating Officer stated, in his findings, that Major Worley had “well documented discriminatory views against the LGBTQ community” that “suggest an inability to uphold the values of equality, respect, and impartiality expected of a company commander.”...

75.... In addition to his unconstitutional and unconscionable findings as it relates to Major Worley’s religious beliefs, views, expression, and exercise, the Investigating Officer also recommended to Defendants that they institute a “No Christians in Command” Policy. ...

The complaint alleges that this violates plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Israel's Supreme Court Orders Drafting of Haredi Men

Yesterday, Israel's Supreme Court in a controversial ruling ordered the government to end draft deferments that have been given to ultra-Orthodox Jewish men studying in yeshivas.  According to The Guardian:

The unanimous ruling on Tuesday, from an expanded panel of nine judges, upheld an interim decision last month that the state had no authority to offer the current exemption for ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, men. It found that yeshivas – Orthodox seminaries for Torah study – should be ineligible for state subsidies unless students enlisted in the military.

The court ruled the state was carrying out “invalid selective enforcement, which represents a serious violation of the rule of law, and the principle according to which all individuals are equal before the law … In the midst of a grueling war, the burden of inequality is harsher than ever and demands a solution.”

According to Times of Israel, within hours after the Court's decision, Israel's Attorney General ordered the Israel Defense Forces to immediately draft 3000 yeshiva students and ordered government ministries to stop transferring already-appropriated funds to yeshivas where students were studying in lieu of military service.

President Issues Memorial Day Prayer for Peace Proclamation

Today is Memorial Day. Last week, President Biden issued his Memorial Day 2024 Proclamation, titled A Proclamation on Prayer for Peace (full text), which says in part:

This Memorial Day, we honor the brave women and men who made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation’s freedom.  We recommit to keeping our sacred obligation to their survivors, families, and caregivers.  Together, we vow to honor their memories by carrying on their work to forge a more perfect Union....

In honor and recognition of all of our fallen service members, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer and reflection.  The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 27, 2024, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time when people might unite in prayer and reflection.  I urge the press, radio, television, and all other information media to cooperate in this observance.  I further ask all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on Memorial Day.

National Guard General Seeks $1.6M Damages for Antisemitic Harassment and Termination

A suit charging antisemitic discrimination was filed last week in a California state trial court by a retired Brigadier General in the Air National Guard against his former supervisor as well as against the state of California, the California Military Department and California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking $1.6 million in damages and injunctive relief. The complaint (full text) in Magram v. Beevers, (CA Super. Ct., filed 1/24/2024), alleges in part:

This case is an action for Religious Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Termination in violation of California Government Code § 12940, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) arising out of Magram’s 37-plus years of employment with the California Air Guard and United States Air Force, which includes 14-plus years as a full time officer on State Active Duty with the CMD. Beevers discriminated against Magram by harassing and wrongfully terminating Magram because of Magram’s Jewish faith, Jewish heritage, and Magram’s complaints about Beevers’ anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. Beevers’ discrimination against Magram violated FEHA and California public policy. The State of California, CMD, and Governor Newsom were aware of Beevers’ anti-Semitism, Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign, and Beevers’ retaliation against Magram. The State California, CMD and Governor Newsom facilitated and ratified Beevers’ anti-Semitism and Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign against Magram.

Stars and Stripes reports on the lawsuit.

Army Appeals Court: Poisoning Through Vodou Not Protected by Free Exercise Clause or RFRA

In United States v. Lindor, (ACCA, June 14, 2023), the Army Court of Criminal Appeals rejected appellant's claim that his murder sentence violated his free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA.  The case involves a Staff Sergeant who, after multiple attempts, succeeded in murdering his wife through the use of rituals and poisons recommended by a Vodou practitioner in Haiti. The court said in part:

[A]ppellant's actions to summon Vodou rituals ... were consistent with his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.... [T]he record contains no indication that they called for any illegal activity or result.... The stipulation's derogatory references to these Vodou rituals—after all, they were categorized as "aggravation" evidence—violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, "cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."...

However, our analysis does not end there,.... [Appellant] waived his objection to evidence of these particular spells in two ways.... First, the military judge directly advised appellant and his counsel that, if he admitted it, he would consider the stipulation of fact to decide whether appellant was guilty, and, if so, an appropriate sentence; appellant and his counsel agreed. Second, the military judge specifically asked appellant's counsel whether he had any objections to the stipulation; counsel responded, "No, Your Honor."...

Turning to appellant's violence toward RL, we view this as substantially different from the rituals about AD and government officials. We have searched for, but cannot find, any authority to support appellant's tacit argument that the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause can broadly shield one from government action to describe, prosecute, and punish conduct that unlawfully endangers another person's life...

Put plainly, we decline to characterize appellant's violent misconduct toward RL as the free exercise of religious belief.... [A]ctivities that harm others are not protected by the free exercise clause. To characterize appellant's chosen techniques to plan, express, and actuate his intent to murder RL as the free exercise of his religious beliefs would expropriate the free exercise clause of any principled, reasonable meaning. The United States Constitution's framers and the various ratifying conventions plainly and deliberately did not contemplate that one could seek protection in the clause for an act that violated another's right to be free from malicious violence.

Memorial Day Proclamation Issued by President Biden

Congress has designated the last Monday in May as Memorial Day. President Biden last week issued A Proclamation on Prayer For Peace, Memorial Day, 2023 (full text). It reads in part:

On Memorial Day, we honor America’s beloved daughters and sons who gave their last full measure of devotion to this Nation....

In honor and recognition of all of our fallen service members, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer and reflection. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 29, 2023, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time when people might unite in prayer and reflection.

Maker of Religious-Themed Military Dog Tags Can Move Ahead with 1st Amendment Claims Against DoD

In Shields of Strength v. U.S. Department of Defense, (ED TX, March 31, 2023), a Texas federal district court allowed a company that manufactures military personnel "dog tags" to move ahead with certain of its 1st Amendment claims against the military that sought to prevent the company from producing dog tags with Biblical or other religious references near symbols or phrases that the military had registered for trademark protection. DoD regulations provide:

DoD marks may not be licensed for any purpose intended to promote ideological movements, sociopolitical change, religious beliefs (including non-belief), specific interpretations of morality, or legislative/statutory change.

 The court said in part:

If the military does not have meaningful conditions and controls on the licensing of its trademarks, the military may be deemed to have opened a limited public forum for private expression using those marks.... If a public forum were opened, disallowing views that promote religious beliefs would seem a prima facie case of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. So defendants’ motion to dismiss the viewpoint-discrimination claims ... is denied....

For purposes of the religious-exercise claims ... the court assumes that any marks not licensed for use on Shields’ dog tags are valid trademarks, used in a way likely to confuse consumers, without a defense to liability (other than religious-exercise rights). The question under Counts 2 and 8 is whether the military’s failure to license that usage violates the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. 

The answer turns on the same categorization called for by the free-speech challenge.... If the military’s grants of trademark licenses are government speech, then any burden from the military’s licensing choice is justified by the compelling governmental interest that animates trademark law generally and, specifically, a trademark owner’s liberty to decide and control its own vision of a mark’s reputation....

On the other hand, if the military’s program here is so unrestrictive that the military has surrendered any licensing voice—making its licensing program a limited public forum for private speech using the marks—that deficiency also negates the compelling public interest for denying Shields’ ability to use the marks.... 

However, the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction because it found no substantial likelihood of success on the claims.

Military Will Provide Travel Allowances for Service Members Who Need to Travel to Obtain Abortions

In a press release issued on Feb. 16, the Department of Defense announced that it has issued policy memoranda (full texts1, 2, 3) that assure access to reproductive health care for service members.  Among other things, the policies will now allow service members to receive travel and transportation allowances if abortion or assisted reproduction services are not available in the local area. The health care services however are at the service member's own expense. Different policies apply to covered abortions, those where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

Army Enjoined from Disciplining Plaintiffs Who Refuse COVID Vaccine on Religious Grounds

A Texas federal district court this week issued a preliminary injunction preventing the military from taking disciplinary action against ten members of the Army who object on religious grounds to complying with the Army's COVID vaccine mandate.  However, the injunction does not prevent the military from taking their vaccination status into account in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions.  In the case, Schelske v. Austin, (ND TX, Dec. 21, 2022), the court said in part:

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But ... these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs’ religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden....

The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Army can prove that application of the vaccine mandate to these plaintiffs furthers a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible. At every turn, however, the evidence before the Court weighs against the Army and in favor of the plaintiffs....

Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.... If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment.... Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce.

President's Memorial Day Proclamation

Today is Memorial Day. Last week, President Biden issued a Proclamation titled Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day 2022 (full text) which reads in part:

In honor and recognition of all of our fallen service members, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer and reflection.  The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

Marine With Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine Is Denied Preliminary Injunction

In Short v. Berger, (D AZ, April 22, 2022), an Arizona federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a Marine Corps major who was denied a religious exemption from the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff is serving as a staff judge advocate.  According to the court:

To date, the USMC has received over 3,600 requests for a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement but has approved only seven of those requests. It appears that, in all seven cases, the applicant was already in the process of separating from the Marines at the time the request was granted. In contrast, the USMC has approved over 900 medical exemptions, including at least 20 permanent medical exemptions.

The court went on:

In his motion for preliminary injunction, Major Short conspicuously does not assert that separation, loss of training and promotion opportunities, loss of pay, and/or a less-than-honorable discharge constitute irreparable injuries.... Instead, the sole theory of irreparable harm articulated in Major Short’s motion is that “being forced to choose between receiving the injection contrary to his religious beliefs, or defying an order, is itself a denial of free exercise, and directly causes irreparable harm.” ... [T]he tangible employment-related harms that Major Short may suffer ... do not qualify as irreparable under Ninth Circuit law because they can be remedied through retrospective relief....  

As for Major Short’s coercion theory, the Court acknowledges that, in many of the recent military vaccine challenges arising outside the Ninth Circuit, courts have suggested that a service member suffers an irreparable injury the moment he is forced to choose between following his religious beliefs and following an order to be vaccinated.... But however persuasive those cases might otherwise be, this Court must follow Ninth Circuit law and the Ninth Circuit has not adopted—and, indeed, appears to have rejected—this theory of irreparable harm....

The court also concluded that beyond the irreparable injury issue, there was uncertainty as to whether Plaintiff would succeed on his RFRA claim.