5th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Vaccine Mandate For Navy Seals With Religious Objections

In U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 v. Biden, (5th Cir., Feb. 28, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant the Navy a partial stay of an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court protecting 35 special warfare personnel who object on religious grounds to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Defendants have not demonstrated “paramount interests” that justify vaccinating these 35 Plaintiffs against COVID-19 in violation of their religious beliefs. They insist that “given the small units and remote locations in which special-operations forces typically operate, military commanders have determined that unvaccinated service members are at significantly higher risk of becoming severely ill from COVID-19 and are therefore medically unqualified to deploy.” But “[r]outine [Naval Special Warfare] mission risks include everything from gunshot wounds, blast injuries, parachute accidents, dive injuries, aircraft emergencies, and vehicle rollovers to animal bites, swimming or diving in polluted waters, and breathing toxic chemical fumes.” There is no evidence that the Navy has evacuated anyone from such missions due to COVID-19 since it instituted the vaccine mandate, but Plaintiffs engage in life-threatening actions that may create risks of equal or greater magnitude than the virus.

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.

Suit In Connecticut State Court Challenges Elimination Of Religious Exemptions To School Vaccine Requirements

Suit was filed earlier this month in a Connecticut state trial court challenging the Connecticut's elimination of religious exemptions to the requirement that school children receive vaccination against several diseases. In January, a Connecticut federal district court dismissed a similar challenge (We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, Jan. 11, 2022).  The new state court complaint (full text) in We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (CT Super., Feb. 8, 2022), contends that requiring students who have religious objections to receive vaccines developed with fetal cells, or containing porcine gelatin, violates various provisions of the Connecticut state constitution and of state law protecting free exercise of religion, as well as equal protection, bodily self-determination, child-rearing, and public education rights.  CT Insider reports on the lawsuit.

Certiorari Denied In Challenge To Maine COVID Vaccine Mandate

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Does 1-3 v. Mills, (Docket No. 21-717, certiorari denied, 2/22/2022) (Order List). At issue in the case is whether Maine's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, without the availability of religious exemptions, violates the Free Exercise clause. (See prior posting.) LifeNews reports on the denial of certiorarai.

Supreme Court Denies Injunction As School System Postpones Vaccine Mandate

In Doe v. San Diego School District, (Sup. Ct., Feb. 18, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order (full text) refusing to enjoin a school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions.  The Court said in part:

Because respondents have delayed implementation of the challenged policy, and because they have not settled on the form any policy will now take, emergency relief is not warranted at this time. Applicants’ alternative request for a writ of certiorari before judgment and a stay pending resolution is denied for the same reason. The Court’s denial is without prejudice to applicants seeking a new injunction if circumstances warrant.

As a press release from the Thomas More Society relates, the suit was brought by a student athlete whose religious beliefs prevent her from taking the current vaccines because of the use of fetal cells in their development.

Two Servicemembers Get Preliminary Injunction Preserving Their Religious Objections To COVID Vaccine

In Navy Seal 1 v. Austin, (MD FL, Feb. 18, 2022), a Florida federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two service members who objected on religious grounds to complying with the military's COVID vaccine mandate.  The court said in part:

Under the command of RFRA, the military bears the burden of showing both the existence of a compelling governmental interest and the absence of a less restrictive means of reasonably protecting that interest. In the instance of Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2, the Navy and the Marine Corps have failed manifestly to offer the statutorily required demonstration that no less restrictive means is available, and each of the two service members is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief that (1) permits them, pending a final determination on a complete record, to continue to serve without the vaccination....

[T]he Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force submit ... the twenty-five most recent letters denying an appeal and submit every letter granting a religious exemption. The submission reveals a process of “rubber stamp” adjudication by form letter, a process incompatible with RFRA’s command to assess each request “to the person.”

On February 2, the same court had issued a temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the most recent decision.

UPDATE: In an April 1, 2022, decision (full text), the district court modified the preliminary injunction to allow the Marine Corps to consider vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.

UPDATE: On April 21, the court issued an opinion (full text) supporting its April 1 Order.

5th Circuit: United Airlines Employees Irreparably Injured By Religious Coercion Over COVID Vaccine

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 per curiam decision, reversed a Texas federal district court's decision that no "irreparable injury" had been suffered by United Airlines employees who were placed on unpaid leave after they refused for religious reasons to comply with the company's COVID vaccine mandate.  The district court held that the employees were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because their loss of income could be remedied by an award of damages in an action under Title VII.  The 5th Circuit majority disagreed, saying in part:

Critically, we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration....

Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms— one of which is reparable ..., and the other of which is irreparable.... The first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.

Judge Smith wrote a stinging 56-page dissent, saying in part:

In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop. It rewrites Title VII to create a new cause of action. It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court....

For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should. The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue. If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the “impossible choice” between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation.

Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

NYC Teachers, Seeking Religious Exemptions, Resubmit Injunction Request To Justice Gorsuch

As previously reported, last week in Keil v. City of New York, Justice Sotomayor Acting on an Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by a group of New York City teachers, refused to enjoin the dismissal of teachers with religious objections who refused to comply with the City's COVID vaccine mandate. Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, the teachers on Feb. 14 requested that their petition be resubmitted, this time to Justice Gorsuch. (Full text  of request letter). Justice Gorsuch has referred the request to the full Court for their March 4 conference. The Second Circuit which refused to grant an injunction pending appeal has already scheduled a hearing on the merits of the teachers' claims for Feb. 24.  CNN reports on these developments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

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. 

Supreme Court Refuses To Enjoin NYC Vaccine Mandate For Teachers

Acting on an Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by a group of New York City teachers, Justice Sotomayor, in Keil v. City of New York, (Sup.Ct., Feb. 11, 2022) refused to enjoin the dismissal of teachers with religious objections who refused to comply with the City's COVID vaccine mandate. The Second Circuit had held that the process for determining whether  a teacher or administrator is entitled to a religious exemption is unconstitutional.  However, it allowed the school system two weeks to reconsider the applications by the named plaintiffs for religious exemptions. (See prior posting).  After reconsideration, the City granted only one of the 14 plaintiffs an exemption. New York Times reports on the decision.

Suit By Jewish And Catholic Plaintiffs Challenge "Key To NYC" Vaccination Requirement

A suit raising 1st and 14th Amendment claims was filed this week in a New York federal district court by five Orthodox Jews (including a rabbi and a yeshiva teacher), and by a Catholic  man, challenging New York City's "Key To NYC" program.  Key To NYC requires individuals to be vaccinated for COVID in order to enter restaurants, entertainment venues and fitness facilities. Plaintiffs contend that they have religious objections to the COVID vaccine.  Their religious objections are set out at length in the complaint (full text) in Jane Doe 1 v. Adams, (ED NY, filed 2/7/2022).  Some of the religious objections are similar to those raised in many other cases, i.e. objections to vaccines developed with the the use of fetal cell lines originating from abortions.  However, the religious objections cited by the Jewish plaintiffs include contentions that have not commonly been raised in past litigation. Here are two examples of the cited beliefs:

Submitting to a government dictate that conditions freedom on vaccination is a form of slavery and subjugation. This violates numerous commandments in the Torah that require one to remember and internalize the great Exodus from slavery in ancient Egypt....

Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, better known as the Chasam Sofer (1762 to 1839), an ancestor of John Doe 1’s wife and the leading Orthodox Rabbi in opposition to the Reform Judaism movement, stated the famous aphorism Chadash Assur Min Hatorah: That which is new is prohibited by the Torah. This was specifically aimed at the attempts to overhaul and change ancient traditions and customs, by the followers of Reform Judaism. The notion that healthy people should be viewed as sick until they can prove their innocence by vaccination in order to be part of society is a new concept that is being forced on humanity as part of the “New Normal” and “Great Reset.” This newfangled posture in human relations that is being imposed by force, has no basis in the Torah....

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the lawsuit.

 

TRO Granted To 2 Military Members Denied Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate

In Navy Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Feb. 2, 2022), a Florida federal district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the military from enforcing its COVID vaccination mandate against two individual service members until Feb. 11 in order to maintain the status quo until a hearing on a preliminary injunction is held.  The service members faced imminent removal from command positions for refusing vaccination. The court said in part:

The record in this action establishes that the two service members are very likely to prevail on their claim that their respective branch of the military has wrongfully denied a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination. The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing and without the showing required under RFRA (while simultaneously granting medical exemptions and permitting unvaccinated persons to continue in service without adverse consequence).

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Court Refuses To Enjoin Medical Campus' Vaccination Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Jan. 27, 2022), a Colorado federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the COVID vaccination requirements of the University of Colorado's Medical Campus.  Under a revised policy, employees are entitled to a religious accommodation if the accommodation would not unduly burden the health and safety of others.  Medical students are not entitled to religious accommodations.  The court found the policy neutral and generally applicable, and so subject only to rational basis review.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court does not see how offering employees the opportunity to request a religious accommodation could amount to treating comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. For one thing, Plaintiffs have not shown that employees and students are comparable in this context....

[A]lthough the University has determined it can accommodate some employees by allowing them to work remotely, Plaintiffs have made no showing that a similar accommodation for students is practicable.  And ... the ... Policy treats employees and students differently because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects the former but not the latter....

The court also concluded that the presence of medical exemptions does not prevent the Policy from being generally applicable.

Free Exercise Challenges To OSHA Vaccine Mandate Dismissed By Supreme Court In Light Of NFIB Decision

 As has been widely reported, earlier this month in National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., Jan. 13, 2022), the Supreme Court held that OSHA exceeded its statutory authority in ordering vaccination of employees in all businesses with more than 100 employees.  Today, the Supreme Court dismissed 13 cases in which the same OSHA regulation was challenged. (Order List). Among those dismissed were two cases brought by religious institutions that raised specific religious freedom objections to the vaccine mandate: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. OSHA, (Docket No. 21A246, dismissed 1/24/2022) and Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. OSHA, (Docket No. 21A250, dismissed 1/24/2022). More details of the challenges in those two cases are discussed in this prior posting.

Split En Banc 9th Circuit Denies Review of Refusal To Enjoin School Vaccine Mandate that Lacks Religious Exemption

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied en banc  reconsideration of the refusal to enjoin, pending appeal, a school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions. In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2022), the court denied en banc review of the panel's decision, with various judges filing opinions dissenting from, or concurring with, the denial. Judge Bumatay, in a 21-page opinion joined by six other judges (and concurred in by one judge with senior status), dissented, saying in part:

Simply put, the District can’t have it both ways by allowing secular exemptions but prohibiting religious ones. If the District offers any secular vaccine exemption with a similar risk profile to a religious exemption, it must satisfy strict scrutiny to exclude a religious exemption. The Constitution forbids the District from picking and choosing its preferred secular exemptions while disfavoring religious exemptions. And this remains true in times of crisis.

Judges Berzon and Bennett filed an opinion concurring in the denial of reconsideration which offered rebuttals to each point made by Judge Bumatay in his dissent. Judge Bress, joined by Judge Bade, and Judge Forrest filed a briefer dissenting opinions as well.

Air Force Officer Sues After Accommodation For Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine Is Denied

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court by a female Air Force officer who has served in the military for 25 years and who was forced into retirement when she refused for religious reasons to take any of the current COVID vaccines.  Her request for a religious accommodation was denied.  The complaint (full text) in Air Force Officer v. Austin, (MD GA, filed 1/6/2022), alleges in part:

52. As a Christian, Plaintiff believes that abortion is a grave evil and contrary to her faith.

53. Plaintiff sincerely believes that receiving a vaccine that was derived from or tested on aborted fetal tissue in its development would violate her conscience and is contrary to her faith....

55. In addition, in accordance with her faith, Plaintiff believes that her “body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19-20), and that injection with a novel substance of unknown long-term effects would violate this belief.

Plaintiff claims that the Air Force's actions violate RFRA and the 1st Amendment. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Connecticut Elimination Of Religious Exemption From School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

 In We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, Jan. 11, 2022), a Connecticut federal district court upheld a Connecticut statute that eliminates the religious exemption from the state requirement for vaccinations for school children. Medical exemptions remain in the statute, and students with previous religious exemptions are allowed to retain them. The court summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

Count One, alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, is dismissed because mandatory vaccination as a condition to school enrollment does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, even if P.A. 21-6 was not foreclosed by Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, it is constitutional because it is a neutral law of general applicability which is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

CT Insider reports on the decision.

"Spiritual Distress" From Employer's Vaccine Mandate Is Not "Irreparable Injury"

In Romano v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, (ED MI, Jan. 3, 2022), a Michigan federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to an employee who was to be fired because he refused to comply with his employer's COVID vaccine mandate.  Plaintiff's refusal was based on religious objections and he claimed the employer's denial of his request for a religious exemption violated Title VII, the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Free Exercise Clause and the Michigan Constitution. However, the court concluded that plaintiff did not meet the "irreparable injury" requirement necessary to support an injunction.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff claimed that his damages are irreparable because he will be fired, lose prestige and seniority, have his reputation marred, and suffer "spiritual distress."... But none of the alleged harms are irreparable....

Although the Court is sympathetic to religious persons who must confront the "impossible choice," Plaintiff never developed a sound legal argument for why the injury attributable to "impossible choice" is irreparable.... Plaintiff instead cited cases that enjoined government COVID19 vaccine mandates—not private COVID-19 vaccine mandates.... As Judge Pittman noted in a similar case, although "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," the First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Defendant....

Going forward, other plaintiffs may have an avenue for injunctive relief in Title VII COVID-19 vaccine mandate cases based on stronger legal arguments and facts.... Yet it is not the Court's role to advance legal and factual arguments for litigants; the Court resolves disputes based on the arguments that litigants assert.

National Law Review reports on the decision.

Rhode Island Vaccine Mandate For Health Care Workers Upheld

In Dr. T v. Alexander-Scott, (D RI, Jan. 7, 2022), a Rhode Island federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a free exercise challenge to a Rhode Island Department of Health regulation requiring all health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  The Regulation contains a narrow medical exemption, but no religious exemption. The court (which had previously denied a temporary restraining order) concluded that the regulation is both neutral and generally applicable. The court said in part:

The Regulation’s medical exemption serves the state’s principal purpose of protecting public health. A failure to exempt the limited number of individuals whose health a vaccine may jeopardize would be counterproductive to that goal to the extent of illogicality. There is no suggestion of a discriminatory bias against religion.

The court also concluded that since the regulation is silent as to religious exemptions, it does not preclude compliance with the reasonable accommodation requirements of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

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.