Recission of Covid Mandate Did Not Totally Moot Navy SEALs' RFRA Challenge

 In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, (ND TX, Feb. 14, 2024), a Texas federal district court held preliminarily that the rescission of the military's Covid vaccine mandate only partially mooted a suit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act brought by Navy SEALs who were denied a religious accommodation. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing satisfies the Court that, “[w]hile the Mandate may be gone, the effects of that Mandate and the discriminatory treatment the Class Members were subject to because of the Mandate still linger.” That is because Defendants have announced no changes to its overarching religious accommodations process. According to Plaintiffs, this allegedly “sham” process is what enabled the coercive and discriminatory treatment of the Class Members while their accommodation requests sat unadjudicated. The Mandate simply served as the catalyst that unveiled the problems with this broader process during the pandemic. These problems include: (1) indefinitely sitting on requests for religious accommodation; (2) foregoing the required individualized assessments, citing standardized policy memos (even if outdated) to satisfy the compelling interest requirement, and using boilerplate statements to suffice for demonstrating that the Navy’s action is the least restrictive means; (3) permitting discrimination and coercive tactics to pressure servicemembers to forego their religious beliefs; (4) authorizing Navy leadership to dictate denial of all requests without considering the individual circumstances of the requests and current conditions or facts; (5) permitting coercion and retaliation against commanding officers who recommend approval of religious accommodations despite the chain of command’s desire that requests be denied; and (6) prohibiting resubmission of denied requests and updates to pending requests due to a change of job, location, or other relevant circumstances.

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

Statute of Limitations Not Tolled on Navy Chaplains' Claims

In In re: Naval Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 23, 2023), the D.C. federal district court held that plaintiffs have not shown that the running of the statute of limitations on their free exercise claims should be tolled because of fraudulent concealment. In the case, which has been in litigation for nearly 25 years, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains alleged discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Navy SEAL's Suit Seeking COVID Vaccine Exemption

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments in U.S. Navy SEAL's 1-26 v. Biden, (Docket No. 22-10077, argued 2/6/2022) (audio recording of full oral arguments). In the case, a Texas federal district court issued preliminary injunctions barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Navy service members who sought religious exemptions from the requirement. (See prior postings 1 and 2). Politico reports on the oral arguments.

Pentagon Asks Supreme Court To Stay Injunction Obtained By Navy SEALS Who Object To Vaccines

 Yesterday in Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 the Pentagon filed with the Supreme Court an Application (full text) for a stay while appeals are pending of an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court. In the case, the district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Navy from imposing its COVID vaccine mandate on 35 Navy service members who have religious objections to the vaccines. (See prior posting.) The  Pentagon sought a stay of the injunction from the 5th Circuit insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions. The 5th Circuit refused to grant the stay. (See prior posting.)  In its Application to the Supreme Court, the Pentagon contends in part:

[E]ven if respondents’ claims had merit, respondents would not be entitled to an injunction dictating the Navy’s deployment, assignment, and operational decisions.... An injunction that trenches on core Article II prerogatives concerning which military servicemembers are qualified for which missions  ... has no precedent in our Nation’s history.

The Application was filed with Justice Alito who called for appellees to respond by March 14. SCOTUSblog reports on the filing.

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.

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.

Navy's Limits On Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Are Challenged

New litigation over limited religious exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates continues to arise.  This time, 35 members of the U.S. Navy filed suit in a Texas federal district court contending that the Navy's policy of denying exemptions or disqualifying from special operations deployment personnel who claim a religious exemption violates their rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint (full text) in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, filed 11/9/2021) alleges a wide variety of religious objections held by various of the plaintiffs who represent Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions:

60. Plaintiffs believe that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine that was tested, developed, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by causing them to participate in the abortion enterprise, which they believe to be immoral and highly offensive to God....

63. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that the human body is God’s temple, and that they must not take anything into their bodies that God has forbidden or that would alter the functions of their body such as by inducing the production of a spike protein in a manner not designed by God....

73. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that, upon seeking guidance from God as to whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, God instructed them not to do so.

74. One Plaintiff holds to the sincere religious belief that trace animal cells in the COVID-19 vaccines, such as from swine, should not be injected into his body.

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

 

Cert. Denied In COVID, Chaplaincy and Abortion Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its lengthy (66-page) first-day-of-the-Term Order List denying review in several hundred cases. It includes the denial of certiorari in the following:

Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills (Docket No. 20-1346): In the case, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a church's interlocutory appeal challenging the Maine governor's COVID Orders limiting attendance at faith-based events. (See prior posting.)

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel v. Department of Navy (Docket No. 20-1794): A case in litigation for over 20 years involving allegations by non-liturgical Protestant chaplains of discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood (Docket No. 21-3): A challenge to Missouri  HB 126 imposing Down Syndrome and Gestational Age limits on abortions. The Supreme Court noted: "After this petition was filed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit withdrew the panel opinion from which the petition sought certiorari. Accordingly, given the absence of any opinion for our review at this time, the petition is denied  without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by either party following the Eighth Circuit’s final disposition of the case."

Navy Chaplain's Claim Dismissed On Res Judicata Grounds

In Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy, (ED VA, Aug. 30, 2021), a Virginia federal district court dismissed on res judicata grounds a suit by a former Navy chaplain (now deceased) who claims that his failure to receive a promotion in rank resulted from retaliation, hostility and prejudice toward non-liturgical Protestant chaplains. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims were previously adjudicated in a 2018 decision in In re Navy Chaplaincy.

Jewish Sailor Gets Temporary Reprieve From Order To Shave Beard

Suit was filed yesterday in the D.C. federal district court by a Jewish sailor who was ordered to shave his beard which he maintains for religious reasons. Other plaintiffs in the case are Muslim sailors.  The complaint (full text) in Di Liscia v. Austin, (D DC, filed 4/15/2021), alleges in part:

1. Plaintiff Edmund Di Liscia, a devout Chassidic Jew and a Sailor in the United States Navy with a rating as an Electricians Mate, Nuclear Power 3rd Class Petty Officer (EMN3), seeks emergency relief to stop Defendants from forcing him to shave in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

2. Over two years ago, shortly after joining the Navy, EMN3 Di Liscia received a “no-shave chit” permitting him to maintain his beard as a religious accommodation for his faith. That accommodation remained effective during his current deployment aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. Indeed, throughout the deployment, his fellow Sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt have all received MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) no-shave chits that allow them to shave only once every fourteen days.

3. But on or around April 14, 2021, EMN3 Di Liscia’s chief informed him that he must shave on the morning of April 16, 2021, and regularly thereafter....

Plaintiff moved for a TRO (memo in support of TRO). The military agreed that it would not require Di Liscia to shave, at least for the time being. The court issued a temporary restraining order (full text) barring the military from requiring him to shave or trim his beard. Military.com reports on the case.

Another Chapter In Challenge To Navy Chaplain Selection Procedures

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (DC Cir., Nov. 6, 2020), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the latest decision in a controversy that has been in litigation for over twenty years.  In the case, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains allege discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. The court said:

the district court made no mistake in granting summary judgment for the Navy on the Plaintiffs’ various First Amendment challenges to its selection board policies. See Chaplaincy, 323 F. Supp. 3d at 35-36, 55-56. With regard to the claims that certain selection board policies violated the Establishment Clause, the Plaintiffs had to show each policy had an unconstitutional effect; that is, the Plaintiffs had to show “the selection policies appear[ed] to endorse religion in the eyes of a reasonable observer.”... To prove an endorsement with statistics, the Plaintiffs had to show a stark disparity in outcomes during the relevant period ..., but the statistics they offered came nowhere close to doing so.

However the court remanded for further proceedings a claim by a chaplain endorsing agency, Associated Gospel Churches, of injury because of the Navy's policy. The trial court had dismissed the claim for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals said in part:

On appeal, AGC argues it has standing in its own right to challenge the Navy’s faith-neutral accession goals. We agree. AGC alleged the Navy’s accession goals resulted in AGC’s chaplain candidates entering the Navy at a significantly lower rate than they otherwise would have. AGC further alleged, because it relies upon its chaplains for financial support, it loses money when its ability to find placements for its candidates is hindered. AGC also alleged its low rate of success placing candidates in the Navy tarnished its reputation. These allegations satisfy all three elements of standing. We express no opinion on the sufficiency of the allegations in any other respect.

The court also reversed and remanded claims that had been dismissed as untimely, ordering the trial court to consider whether equitable tolling applies. Finally, the court held:

Allowing chaplains to sit on chaplain selection boards does not create a de jure denominational preference and does not create excessive entanglement.

Navy Chaplains Given One More Chance To Refile Discrimination Claims

Arnold v. Secretary of the Navy, (D DC, April 21, 2020) is the latest installment in long-running litigation against the U.S. Navy by a group of non-liturgical Protestant chaplains who claim that the Navy discriminated against them.  In a 2018 opinion (which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Circuit), the chaplains' broad challenges to Navy chaplain selection board policies and procedures were rejected, but the court allowed plaintiffs to file a new complaints-- which are at issue here-- claiming discrete instances of individual discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge. Many of these claims were dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. The court reluctantly concluded that plaintiffs, with limitations, can file new complaints raising those individual claims. The court said in part:

As demonstrated by this very case, plaintiffs and their counsel persist in filing repetitive and duplicative complaints despite having received lengthy decisions outlining precisely why their systemic challenges fail....

Based on plaintiffs’ actions thus far and their insistence that repetitious filings and forum shopping are mandatory to vindicate their interests, the Court deems it surpassingly likely that absent a pre-filing injunction, the refiling of any surviving claims will almost certainly be broadened to include challenges to the Navy’s selection board policies and procedures that have already been resolved by this Court—in the 2018 opinion and again today.... Consequently, the Court concludes that a narrowly tailored prospective filing restriction is necessary.

The Court will sever the surviving retaliation, constructive discharge, and interference with religious free speech claims. And it will permit plaintiffs to refile those ad hoc claims in this Court or any other appropriate district Court, in individual complaints (not joined with any other plaintiff). However, any plaintiff who wishes to refile his or her claims in any federal court must first seek leave from this Court within thirty days, that is, by not later than May 21, 2020.

Navy Liberalizes Policy On Religious Head Coverings

The U.S. Navy, in a memo dated March 16 (full text), became the third branch of the armed forces to liberalize its policy on accommodation of religious headgear.  As reported by Navy Times:

Previously, religious head coverings like Muslim hijabs and Jewish kippahs were allowed because they did not interfere with uniform covers, but per the March 16 instruction from the Bureau of Navy Personnel, there is no longer a requirement that an approved religious head covering be worn underneath the cover prescribed by the uniform of the day.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Nuclear Protesters' RFRA Defense Rejected

In United States v. Kelly, (SD GA, Aug. 26, 2019), a Georgia federal district court refused to dismiss indictments against seven Catholics who are members of the Plowshares Movement, an activist group opposed to nuclear weapons.  Defendants were indicted for trespass and destruction of government property after they broke into a highly secured Naval Submarine Base and in protest of nuclear weapons poured blood on the ground, hung banners and painted messages. Defendants contended that their actions were protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said:

Because Defendants' actions at Kings Bay were exercises of their sincerely held religious beliefs that they should "take action in opposition to the presence of nuclear weapons at Kings Bay,"... Defendants' actions at Kings Bay were engaged in for religious reasons and were thus "religious exercises" within the meaning of RFRA....

It went on, however:

The government has established that it has compelling interests in the safety of those on Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, the security of the government assets housed there, and the smooth operation of the base.

Non-Liturgical Protestant Navy Chaplains Refile In Long-Running Discrimination Litigation

Last year, a D.C. federal district court dismissed a long-running lawsuit brought by  non-liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains alleging discrimination against them by the Navy. (See prior posting.)  However the court severed certain claims with leave to file them in other jurisdictions.  Earlier this month those severed claims were included in a complaint filed in a Virginia federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy, (ED VA, filed 3/1/2019), summarized the allegations as follows:

This case addresses 27 Non-liturgical Navy Chaplains plaintiffs’ longstanding claims of retaliation and low fitness reports...; constructive discharge because of unlawful FOS [failures of selection]; and interference with their ministry, speaking, preaching and worship services based on denominational prejudice.

This retaliation resulted in plaintiffs’ FOS and either separation for FOS or constructive discharges. Senior Navy chaplains are the perpetrators and sources of these claims, primarily Roman Catholic and/or Liturgical Protestants, in positions of authority, influence and supervision representing and acting under the authority of the Navy and its CHC. The actions represent a pattern and practice of illegal retaliation and discrimination based on denominational hostility and prejudice.

WAVY News reports on the lawsuit.

Protestant Navy Chaplains Lose Discrimination Lawsuit

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 30, 2018), a D.C. federal district court granted summary judgment for the U.S..Navy in a long-running suit by non-liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains alleging discrimination against them. The court summarized the facts and its holding:

Plaintiffs’ primary claim is that, until 2002, the Navy maintained an unconstitutional policy of placing at least one Roman Catholic chaplain on every selection board, which resulted in Catholic chaplains being promoted at a disproportionately high rate compared to other religious groups. Plaintiffs also challenge a host of other allegedly unconstitutional selection-board policies and procedures—some of which, plaintiffs claim, continue to this day. Finally, plaintiffs challenge a statute that privileges selection-board deliberations from disclosure in litigation, arguing that it is unconstitutional as applied to their case because it denies them access to information that they need to prove their constitutional claims. To redress these wrongs, plaintiffs—each of whom was either passed over for promotion or selected for early retirement by a board that was allegedly tainted by one or more of the challenged procedures—seek an order directing the Navy to reinstate them to active duty, if necessary, and to convene new, properly constituted selection boards to reconsider the personnel actions taken against them....

To a considerable extent, the result in this case is dictated by prior rulings.... Consequently, there is little left to do here but to apply those standards ... which, as explained below, does not even come close to showing the degree of discrimination required for plaintiffs’ challenges to succeed. Likewise, this Court has already twice considered and twice rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the statutory privilege for selection-board proceedings...

Court Orders More Briefs On RFRA Defense By Peace Protesters

In an Order last week in United States v. Kelly, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138195, (SD GA, Aug. 15, 2018), a Georgia federal magistrate judge instructed both sides to provide additional briefing on the "particularized issues raised by Defendants' RFRA defense" in the prosecution of peace activists for breaking into Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay. Defendants argue that their "symbolic disarmament" of nuclear weapons at the base was an exercise of their sincerely held Catholic beliefs.  In ordering additional briefs, the court said in part:

At the August 2, 2018 motions hearing, counsel for both the Government and Defendants represented to the Court that Defendants' RFRA claim as a defense to criminal prosecution was an issue of first impression and that the applicability of RFRA to federal criminal law was an open question.... Subsequent to the hearing, however, the Government filed Supplemental Briefing that acknowledged RFRA's applicability to criminal prosecutions and its availability as a defense.... The Government now contends that Defendants' actions ... were not religious in nature and ... even assuming they were, the Government contends it has a compelling interest in protecting Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay....

Brunswick News reports on the court's Order.

Many Claims of Non-Liturgical Navy Chaplains Are Dismissed; Several Claims Survive

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, March 16, 2016), a challenge to Navy procedures for selection and promotion of chaplains that has wound its way through the courts for over 16 years, the D.C. federal district court dismissed a substantial number of plaintiffs' claims.  The case has already generated over 20 decisions in the courts.  In the case (actually 3 consolidated cases), plaintiffs (Non-Liturgical Protestants) challenged both Navy policies and the practices of chaplain selection boards.  As explained by the court in its 59-page opinion:

[T]hey contend that the faith group categories recognized by the Navy are discriminatory and arbitrary..... In particular, they claim that the categories reflect neither religious demographics nor legitimate similarities or differences among the worship traditions represented.  Second, they allege that in the past ... the [Chaplain Corps] used religious quotas to apportion chaplain opportunities among various faith groups..... Third, Plaintiffs challenge a number of facially neutral personnel practices - both current and historical - that they believe have allowed religious bias to infect selection board outcomes.

The court dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing or on mootness or statute of limitations grounds. However the court allowed two former chaplains to proceed with their complaint that the Navy violated their free speech rights by interfering with their form of prayer. More specifically they allege that they were reprimanded for ending their prayer "in Jesus name." The court also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their non-selection for promotion claims.  In addition, the Navy did not seek dismissal of challenges to policies on the promotion and early retirement selection board process.

Navy May Remove Christian Chaplain For Inapproriate Counseling On Sexuality

Military Times reported Wednesday on the Navy's threat to remove Pentecostal chaplain Lt. Cmdr. Wesley Modder from the service because of inappropriate counseling he offered to sailors on issues of sexuality. After a number of sailors filed equal opportunity complaints against Modder, on Feb. 17 he was issued a "detachment for cause" letter.  His commanders charge that Modder is intolerant and unable to function in a diverse and pluralistic environment. Assigned to the Nuclear Power Training Command in South Carolina, Modder had criticized female sailors for pre-marital sex and told students that homosexuality is wrong. When told of complaints against him, Modder responded that he will not follow Navy policy that conflicts with his religious beliefs. Modder has been temporarily reassigned, while it is determined whether a board of inquiry to officially separate him from the Navy will be convened.  He has less than a year to serve in order to qualify for 20-year retirement benefits.

Humanist Sues Navy Over Rejection of His Chaplaincy Application

Stars and Stripes reported yesterday that a lawsuit has been filed in federal district court for the Northern District of Virginia by a religion scholar and former youth minister whose application to become the Navy's first Humanist chaplain was turned down.  Plaintiff Jason Heap, who filed suit along with the Humanist Society, claims that political opposition to a Humanist as a chaplain derailed his application. (See prior related posting.) He contends that he holds his Humanist beliefs with the same strength and sincerity as believers in traditional religions hold theirs.  He says that his rejection violated his constitutional rights and asks the court to order his instatement as a Navy Chaplain. The suit names various Navy and Defense officials as defendants. Last week in an unrelated case, an Oregon federal district court held that Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. (See prior posting.)