Preliminary Injunction Denied To Navy SEAL With Religious Objection To COVID Vaccines

 In Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, (D DC, April 29, 2022), a DC federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to bar discharge or other adverse action against a Navy SEAL who refuses for religious reasons to comply with the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.  The court said that plaintiff does not face imminent discharge because another federal district court has issued a class-wide injunction against that. As to other adverse action, the court said in part:

As currently pled, there are a plethora of weaknesses in Plaintiff’s claims that counsel against preliminary relief. First, there appears to be a serious question as to whether Plaintiff’s claims are justiciable, because they require the Court both to evaluate the merits of military expertise and to weigh technical issues of public health and immunology based on novel science that remains unfixed as the current COVID-19 pandemic turns endemic. Second, the Court is concerned that the record as it currently stands does not properly resolve whether mandatory vaccination is the least restrictive means as to Plaintiff to accomplish the Government’s interest in force readiness and national security more broadly. That fault permeates Plaintiff’s RFRA claim, Free Exercise claim, and Equal Protection claim. Taken together, the Court concludes these issues militate against preliminary relief at this early stage of the case.

District Court Issues Class-Wide Injunction To Navy SEALS Vaccine Objectors

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, (ND TX, March 28, 2022), a Texas federal district court granted a class-wide preliminary injunction to  4,095 Navy servicemembers who object on religious grounds to the Navy's COVID-19 vaccine mandate and have filed religious accommodation requests. The court also certified two sub-classes. However, the court immediately stayed the injunction "insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions." This decision expands the court's previous grant of a preliminary injunction to 35 individual plaintiffs into a class-wide injunction.  That order was stayed, pending appeal, by the Supreme Court, insofar as it barred the Navy from considering the COVID vaccination status of the service members in making deployment, assignment and operational decisions. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

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.]