9th Circuit: Oak Flat Land Exchange Did Not Substantially Burden Apache Religious Exercise

In Apache Stronghold v. United States, (9th Cir., June 24, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a proposed federal government land exchange in Arizona with a mining company will not substantially burden Apache religious exercise in violation of RFRA. Nor will it violate the 1st Amendment because the Land Exchange Provision is a neutral and generally applicable law. The majority said in part:

Under RFRA, the government imposes a substantial burden on religion in two—and only two—circumstances: when the government “force[s individuals] to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit” and when the government “coerce[s individuals] to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions.” ... Here, the government will do neither by transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper.... The Department of Agriculture will simply transfer ownership of a plot of government land to Resolution Copper. The Land Exchange’s “incidental effects” on the religious exercise of Apache Stronghold’s members, as significant as they may be to the Apache, “may make it more difficult [for them] to practice [their religion] but [will] have no tendency to coerce [the Apache] into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.” ... Hence, under RFRA the Land Exchange imposes no substantial burden and RFRA thus does not limit the government’s ability to complete the Land Exchange. 

This is true even if the Land Exchange makes worship on Oak Flat “impossible.” 

Judge Berzon dissented, saying in part:

The majority applies an overly restrictive test for identifying a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.... The majority’s flawed test leads to an absurd result: blocking Apaches’ access to and eventually destroying a sacred site where they have performed religious ceremonies for centuries does not substantially burden their religious exercise. The majority offers both a doctrinal and a practical basis for its unduly narrow definition of “substantial burden.” Both are incorrect.

The majority opinion includes a lengthy response to the dissent. Reuters reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Tribe's Challenge To Geothermal Project

On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Department of the Interior (video of full oral arguments). In the case, in a January 14, 2022 opinion (full text) a Nevada federal district court, among other things, rejected a claim by the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe that construction of a geothermal facility will violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The district court held that plaintiffs' claim that the project destroys the Tribe's ability to exercise its religious traditions is not enough to amount to a "substantial burden" on religious exercise. Desecration of a sacred area does not coerce Tribe members to act contrary to their religion. A conservation organization is also a plaintiff in the case. (See prior related posting.)  Nevada Current reports on this week's oral arguments.

Meat Processor Is Not State Actor In Requiring COVID Vaccination of Employees

In Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (WD TN, June 14, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that their rights under RFRA and free exercise clause were violated when their employer required them to be vaccinated against COVID.  The court held that plaintiffs were not state actors, even though the President had invoked the Defense Production Act and instructed meat and poultry procession plants to continue operations.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant acted as an “agent of the government … by imposing strict worker vaccination rules to (in the estimation of the federal government), in order to preserve the integrity of the national food supply.”... However, no facts are pled that would enable the Court to find a sufficient nexus between Defendant’s vaccine policy and the involvement of the Government. The mere fact that Defendant relied on OSHA and CDC guidance in formulating its vaccine policy does not make Defendant an “agent of the government.” Nor does the fact that Defendant is subject to the federal government’s COVID-19 guidance for meat and poultry plants convert Defendant into a government actor.

The court also dismissed several other, but not all, of plaintiffs' additional claims.

Class Action Filed To Challenge Air Force Vaccine Mandate

Another lawsuit has been filed by religious objectors challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  Brought in a Texas federal district court by nine members of the Air Force as a class action on behalf of all Air Force members with religious objections to the COVID vaccine, the complaint (full text) in Spence v. Austin, (ND TX, filed 5/27/2022), alleges violations of plaintiffs' rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA.  It alleges in part:

Defendants  have  mandated  that  all  members  of  the  Air  Force  receive  a COVID-19  vaccine,  or  be involuntarily  separated.  In theory, Defendants  offer medical, administrative,  and  religious  accommodations  to  that  mandate.  But  in  practice, only servicemembers with medical or administrative reasons for an exemption from the mandate are accommodated. Religious accommodation requests (“RARs”) are universally denied unless the requester is already imminently leaving the Air Force. 

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

Supreme Court Stays District Court's Ban On Navy Applying Vaccine Mandate To SEALs With Religious Objections

Yesterday in Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26, (Sup.Ct., March 25, 2022), in a case on its shadow docket, the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 stayed a Texas district court's order that barred the Navy from considering the COVID vaccination status of 35 service members in making deployment, assignment and operational decisions. The service members all have religious objections to the vaccines. The Court's stay remains in effect while appeals to the 5th Circuit and, subsequently if necessary, to the Supreme Court are pending. The stay was granted through an unsigned one-paragraph order.  However, Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[T]he District Court, while no doubt well-intentioned, in effect inserted itself into the Navy’s chain of command, overriding military commanders’ professional military judgments. The Court relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act... But even accepting that RFRA applies in this particular military context, RFRA does not justify judicial intrusion into military affairs in this case. That is because the Navy has an extraordinarily compelling interest in maintaining strategic and operational control over the assignment and deployment of all Special Warfare personnel—including control over decisions about military readiness. And no less restrictive means would satisfy that interest in this context.

Justice Thomas dissented without opinion.  Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a dissenting opinion, which concluded that the Navy had not satisfied the requirements of RFRA or the 1st Amendment.  However, the opinion would grant limited relief to the Navy while appeals are pending.  The opinion said in part:

While I am not sure that the Navy is entitled to any relief at this stage, I am also wary, as was the District Court, about judicial interference with sensitive military decision making. Granting a substantial measure of deference to the Navy, I would limit the [district court's] order to the selection of the Special Warfare service members who are sent on missions where there is a special need to minimize the risk that the illness of a member due to COVID–19 might jeopardize the success of the mission or the safety of the team members.

NBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Joshua Sarnoff via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Suit Says Border Agents Questioned Muslims About Their Religious Practices

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by three Muslim Americans who claim that they were asked religiously intrusive questions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents upon their return from international travel. Among the questions were: “How often do you pray?” “Do you attend mosque?” “Which mosque do you attend?” “Are you Sunni or Shi’a?”  The complaint (full text) in Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, filed 3/24/2022), contends in part:

Religious questioning such as this violates the U.S. Constitution. It furthers no valid—let alone compelling—government interest, and it is an affront to the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association. Moreover, because Defendants specifically target Muslim Americans for such questioning, they also violate the First and Fifth Amendments’ protections against unequal treatment on the basis of religion. Just as border officers may not single out Christian Americans to ask what denomination they are, which church they attend, and how regularly they pray, singling out Muslim Americans for similar questions is unconstitutional....

 This practice also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Another Suit Seeks Religious Exemptions From Military's Vaccine Mandate

Yet another group of military personnel have filed suit challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  As in a number of other cases, plaintiffs complain that while regulations allow religious exemptions, almost all applications for them are denied.  The complaint (full text) in Roth v. Austin, (D NE, filed 3/8/2022), was filed by 36 Air Force and Air National Guard members who allege that their rights under RFRA and the First Amendment have been infringed. WOWT reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges DC's Remaining Mask Mandate For Catholic Schools

In Mayor's Order 2022-029 (Feb. 14, 2022), the District of Columbia lifted its COVID mask mandate for various business and recreation venues, and houses of worship, but continued the mandate for a number of facilities including "Public, public charter, private, parochial, and independent schools."  On Monday, suit was filed in the D.C. federal district court by parents of Catholic school students alleging that keeping the mask mandate on Catholic schools violates RFRA and the First Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Dugan v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 3/7/2022) alleges in part:

Defendants’ mandate requiring the children to wear masks in their Catholic school classrooms—while allowing children and adults to not wear masks nearly everywhere else—is arbitrary, unscientific, and irrational. Under Defendants’ policy, a child could sit for hours at the Wizards game at the crowded Capitol One Arena without wearing a mask, but she must cover her face for seven hours a day, the moment she steps into her Catholic school building....

In addition to unconstitutionally burdening Catholic schools and treating them unequally, Defendants’ prolonged mask mandate has had substantially detrimental effects on—and is continuing to significantly impede—the Parents’ children’s Catholic formation and education.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: On March 11, ADF announced that the lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed after D.C. revoked the mask mandate.  (Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).

Air Force Reservist With Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine Wins Injunction

In Poffenbarger v. Kendall, (SD OH, Feb. 28, 2022), an Ohio federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from taking further adverse action against an Air Force reservist who refuses for religious reasons to comply with the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  The court concluded that plaintiff's rights under both RFRA and the free exercise clause were violated, saying in part:

Defendants have not shown that the Air Force’s action meets the least-restrictive-means test. The evidence indicates that the Air Force has granted virtually zero exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.... At the same time, the Air Force has granted thousands of exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on non-religious grounds.... This supports that less restrictive means of furthering the Air Force’s interests are being provided (even if only on a “temporary” basis) on non-religious grounds. And, the Defendants have not shown why such less restrictive means cannot likewise be provided to Poffenbarger.

Springfield News-Sun reports on the decision.

Preacher Can Move Ahead With Selective Enforcement Challenge To U.S. Capitol Demonstration Limits

In Mahoney v. United States Capitol Police Board, (D DC, Feb. 22, 2022), a clergyman challenged traffic regulations that barred demonstrations by 20 or more people at various locations near the U.S. Capitol. Plaintiff claimed he felt "called by God" to hold a prayer vigil near the Capitol to mark the 20th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The court rejected plaintiff's facial free speech challenge to the regulation. However it permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his selective enforcement and free-association claims, saying in part:

Plaintiff has therefore alleged that the Board declined to enforce the Traffic Regulations against several large demonstrations that did not involve religious speech, while it enforced them against him because of the religious content of his speech. It is thus at least plausible that Defendants’ decision was based on the content of Mahoney’s speech, even if that is not the only plausible explanation.

The court rejected plaintiff's Free Exercise and RFRA challenges. It observed: "nowhere does he allege that having a large group present was essential to carrying out his sincerely held religious belief."

Air Force Officer Gets Injunction Against Required COVID Vaccine

In Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, Feb. 15, 2022), a Georgia federal district court, invoking RFRA and the 1st Amendment, granted a preliminary injunction to an Air Force officer who sought a religious exemption from the Air Force's COVID vaccine mandate.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants haven’t “shown that vaccination is actually necessary by comparison to alternative measures[]” since “the curtailment of free [exercise] must be actually necessary to the solution.”...

Moreover, one must keep in mind that the Air Force has rejected 99.76% of all religious accommodation requests.... With such a marked record disfavoring religious accommodation requests, the Court easily finds that the Air Force’s process to protect religious rights is both illusory and insincere. In short, it’s just “theater.”...

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination requirement allows service members to refuse vaccination for secular reasons while disallowing refusal based on religious reasons.... No matter whether one service member is unvaccinated for a medical reason and another unvaccinated for a religious reason, one thing remains the same for both of these service members—they’re both unvaccinated. In other words, both of these service members pose a “similar hazard” to Defendants’ compelling interest in “[s]temming the spread of COVID-19” within the military....

[W]hat real interest can our military leaders have in furthering a requirement that violates the very document they swore to support and defend? The Court is unquestionably confident that the Air Force will remain healthy enough to carry out its critical national defense mission even if Plaintiff remains unvaccinated and is not forced to retire.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision. 

10th Circuit: Muslim Terrorism Inmate Can Sue Under RFRA For Damages

In Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2022), the U.S. 10th circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a religious freedom suit brought by an inmate who is serving a sentence of 114 years for terrorist acts related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The court summarized its holding:

Ahmad Ajaj, a practicing Muslim, ... sued to obtain injunctive relief against BOP and damages from BOP officials [alleging] violations of his rights to free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).... He contends that the district court erred by holding (1) that his claim against the BOP for denial of his right to group prayer was moot and (2) that RFRA did not provide a claim for damages against government officials in their individual capacities.... [W]e ... reverse the challenged rulings. The mootness ruling was based on a misconception of the evidence....  And the Supreme Court has now ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir ... that damages claims are permissible under RFRA.... We reject Mr. Ajaj’s contention that the doctrine of qualified immunity is inapplicable to RFRA claims, but we decline to resolve whether the individual defendants in this case have shown entitlement to qualified immunity, leaving that matter to the district court in the first instance.

Court Rejects Religious and Other Challenges To Takeover Of Abandoned Homes

Honkala v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  (ED PA, Jan. 31, 2022) involves an unsuccessful challenge to the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) attempted eviction of homeless families who took over abandoned vacant housing owned by PHA.  A community activist and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign staged a series of such takeovers.  Among the challenges raised by plaintiffs were religious freedom claims under RFRA and RLUIPA. The court explains:

[Plaintiffs assert] they are “currently possessed of ethical, moral, humanitarian and/or religious belief(s) and action(s), including but not limited to those rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the least and most needy amongst us, which federal law therefore respects and identifies as a ‘religious belief’ pursuant to the definition thereof as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5.”... Plaintiffs allege that their work “building and/or repairing and/or converting real property, such as the public housing property at issue…is therefore considered a ‘religious exercise,’ and Defendants are unable to satisfy their “burden of proving that eviction is the least restrictive means of fostering any compelling interest it may otherwise invoke.....

The Pennsylvania federal district court rejected plaintiffs' RFRA claim because RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government and not to that of states and municipalities.  While PHA holds the property in trust for HUD, HUD did not cause their injuries.  The court also rejected plaintiffs" RLUIPA claim because the claim does not involve a zoning issue and because plaintiffs have no property interest in the house.  The court additionally rejected several other legal theories put forward by plaintiffs, but said in part:

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness, this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2, Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions.

RFRA Defense Successful For Tribal Member Charged In Protest Over Border Wall Construction

In United States v. Ortega, (D AZ, Jan. 19, 2022), an Arizona federal district court reversed its earlier ruling (see prior posting) and allowed Amber Ortega, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, to raise a Religious  Freedom Restoration Act defense in her trial on two misdemeanor charges for violating a closure order at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Ortega was protesting construction of a border wall at Organ Pipe. At the hearing on Wednesday, the court went on to acquit Ortega.  According to KJZZ News, at the hearing Ortega's new lawyer argued:

[T]he religious act in question was not prayer at Quitobaquito.  It was the act of standing at the construction line and witnessing what she saw as the destruction of her ancestral land.

Navy Enjoined From Applying Vaccine Mandate To Plaintiff Religious Objectors

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, Jan. 3, 2022), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on 35 Navy service members who are plaintiffs in the case.  The court held that plaintiffs need not exhaust their military remedies before suing because, while the Navy's policy provides for religious exemptions, the denial of each exemption request is predetermined.  Also, even if a religious exemption is granted, the service member is then permanently barred from deployment.

The court concluded that applying the vaccine mandate to plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

Because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial burden, Defendants must show that this burden furthers a compelling interest using the least restrictive means....

Even if Defendants have a broad compelling interest in widespread vaccination of its force, they have achieved this goal without the participation of the thirty-five Plaintiffs here. At least 99.4% of all active-duty Navy servicemembers have been vaccinated.... The remaining 0.6% is unlikely to undermine the Navy’s efforts.... With a 99.4% vaccination rate, the Navy’s herd immunity is at an all-time high. COVID-19 treatments are becoming increasingly effective at reducing hospitalization and death....

Moreover, the Navy is willing to grant exemptions for non-religious reasons. Its mandate includes carveouts for those participating in clinical trials and those with medical contraindications and allergies to vaccines.... Because these categories of exempt servicemembers are still deployable, a clinical trial participant who receives a placebo may find himself ill in the high-stakes situation that Defendants fear.... As a result, the mandate is underinclusive.

The court also concluded that applying the mandate to plaintiffs violates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause because the mandate is not neutral and generally applicable.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

Christian Organizations Ask Supreme Court To Stay OSHA Private-Employer Vaccine Mandate

Last Friday, in a 2-1 decision in In re: MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a stay of OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard that calls for employers of of 100 or more persons to require either COVID vaccination of employees or weekly testing (and masks) for unvaccinated workers. Challenges in some three dozen cases had been consolidated in the 6th Circuit which then had authority to modify or dissolve the prior stay issued by the 5th Circuit. 

Among the consolidated cases was one brought by a number of Christian schools, colleges and organizations that were subject to the rule. They quickly filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a stay pending appeal of the 6th Circuit's decision. The Application (full text) in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/17/2021) argues:

OSHA lacks jurisdiction to regulate religious non-profit institutions, because they are not “employers” under the OSH Act.

It goes on to contend that the OSHA rule also violates Applicants' religious freedom rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

OSHA “commandeers” Religious Institutions “to compel [their] employees” to comply with the mandate.... To ensure compliance, Religious Institutions must probe their ministers’ and employees’ intimate and personal medical decisions that often implicate their religious beliefs. This is precisely the “secular control or manipulation” that the First Amendment prohibits.... In addition, the mandate violates the First Amendment by setting the “terms and conditions of employment” to work for Religious Institutions ... and interfering with their ability to “select[] ... the individuals who play certain key roles”....

Religious Institutions exercise their faith by providing seminary training, providing Catholic and Christian education, engaging in nonprofit ministries, and operating for-profit businesses according to Christian values. The Mandate will force Religious Institutions to take faculty out of classrooms, and staff out of operating these organizations and businesses—for testing on a weekly basis or for non-compliance—which will significantly disrupt Religious Institutions’ mission, including for-profit businesses’ operations and exercise.... This burden is substantial—not mere inconvenience—because Religious Institutions’ employees are not fungible.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the Emergency Application. SCOTUblog discusses the filing.

A second Emergency Application was filed by a different group of Christian organizations.  The Application (full text) in Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/19/2021) contends in part:

... [T]he violation of the Ministries’ religious faiths is not cured by the provisions of the ETS and Title VII that provide them with discretion to grant religious accommodations to their employees.... The Ministries cannot put their employees to the test by requiring them to seek religious accommodations for the government-imposed vaccine mandate.... In other words, even asking their employees to make a decision of religious conscience about the vaccine mandate causes the Ministries to engage in what they believe is sin. Moreover, the mask requirement for unvaccinated employees also burdens the Ministries’ religious beliefs, because they believe that OSHA’s requirement that they mask unvaccinated employees would forcibly identify those who are unvaccinated and cause division within their organizations.... The Ministries believe they have a Biblical duty to promote unity within their organizations.

Axios reports on this filing.

Tribe Sues Claiming Energy Project Violates Its Religious Rights

The Center for Biological Diversity announced yesterday:

The Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wednesday over its approval of the Dixie Meadows geothermal energy project, which could dry up nearby springs and harm an extremely rare amphibian, the Dixie Valley toad.

The complaint (full text) in Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Department of the Interior, (D NV, filed 12/15/2021), includes a claim that approval of the project violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

188. The Tribe and its members’ sincerely held religious beliefs involve quiet contemplation and reflection at Dixie Meadows Hot Springs, including the surrounding landscape. Tribal members’ compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise.

189. Defendants’ approval of the Project creates government-imposed coercive pressure on the Tribal members to change or violate their religious beliefs. As detailed in this Complaint, approval of the Project damages the sacred value of the Hot Springs by altering its undisturbed state, and damages Tribal members’ ability to carry out religious practices by creating noise, light, and visual pollution.

The complaint points out:

59. On November 9, 2021—14 days before BLM approved the Project—Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CEQ, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) concerning the protection of indigenous sacred sites.

60. The MOU recognizes that the spiritual and religious practices and traditions of indigenous peoples are closely tied to the natural world and specific places.

Court Denies Motion Under RFRA And 1st Amendment To Dismiss Indictments

In United States v. Morales, (SD CA, Dec. 13, 2021), a California federal district court denied a motion to dismiss indictments against three defendants who claimed that the indictments violated their rights under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause. Among the charges were that defendants induced Imperial Valley Ministry participants to surrender SNAP benefits to the Ministries and that they dispatched IVM participants to panhandle. The court said in part:

The Court finds too attenuated a link between the Government’s prosecution of Defendants for forced labor, document servitude, and benefits fraud and Defendants’ purported religious activities of evangelizing, fundraising, donating to the church, and general operation of IVM programs for there to be a substantial burden, as there remain viable alternative avenues for Defendants to conduct their specified religious activities....

11th Circuit Rejects Nuclear Protesters' RFRA Defense

In United States v. Grady, (11th Cir., Nov. 22, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of three members of the Plowshares movement, a Catholic protest organization opposed to nuclear weapons. Defendants were convicted for their illegal entry onto a Naval submarine base that was followed by a religious "symbolic disarmament" protest. The court rejected defendants' argument that their indictments should have been dismissed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

In this case, the parties agree that the defendants were exercising sincerely held religious beliefs, the government substantially burdened the defendants’ religious exercise, and the government has a compelling interest. Accordingly, the fourth prong in the RFRA analysis is the only prong in dispute in this appeal—whether the government met its burden of demonstrating that criminal prosecution of the defendants was the least-restrictive means of furthering its significant compelling interests in the safety and security of the naval base, naval base personnel, and naval base assets....

[I]n order to be a viable least-restrictive means for purposes of RFRA, the proposed alternative needed to accommodate both the religious exercise practiced in this case— unauthorized entry onto the naval base and destructive actions, including spray painting monuments, doors, and sidewalks, pouring human blood on doors and other areas, hammering on a static missile display, hanging banners and crime scene tape, as well as removing and partially destroying signage and monuments around the naval base—and simultaneously achieve the government’s compelling interests in the safety and security of the naval base, naval base assets, personnel, and critical operations....

[N]othing in RFRA supports destructive, national-security-compromising conduct as a means of religious exercise. 

Court Defers Ruling On Military's Actions On Religious Exemption Requests From Vaccine Mandate

In Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Nov. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court, after a lengthy discussion of free exercise protection under the 1st Amendment and RFRA, deferred until at least Jan. 7, 2022, ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by service members seeking religious exemptions from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate for members of the military. According to the court:

[P]laintiffs claim the regulations — governing in each respective branch the availability of a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine and purporting to comply with the demands of RFRA — in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption and without accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine....

[T]he data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA.

The court ordered each branch of the armed forces, beginning Jan. 7, 2022, to file bi-weekly reports on the number of exemption requests and the number granted, as well as on the number of service members court martialed after the denial of a religious exemption. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.