U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden

• Decision Date: 03 January 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O
• Citation: 578 F.Supp.3d 822
• Parties: U.S. NAVY SEALS 1-26, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

578 F.Supp.3d 822

U.S. NAVY SEALS 1-26, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Joseph R. BIDEN, Jr., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

Signed January 3, 2022

Michael Dan Berry, David Jonathan Hacker, Hiram Stanley Sasser, III, Jeffrey C. Mateer, Justin Edward Butterfield, Kelly J. Shackelford, Roger Lucian Byron, First Liberty Institute, Plano, TX, Andrew Bowman Stephens, Heather Gebelin Hacker, Hacker Stephens LLP, Austin, TX, Jordan E. Pratt, Pro Hac Vice, First Liberty Institute, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Chad E. Meacham, US Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, Amy Elizabeth Powell, US Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, Andrew Evan Carmichael, Courtney Danielle Enlow, Zachary Anthony Avallone, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants Lloyd J. Austin, III, United States Department of Defense, Carlos Del Toro.

ORDER ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Reed O'Connor, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect.¹ Every president since the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has praised the men and women of the military for their bravery and service in protecting the freedoms this country guarantees.²

In this case, members of the military seek protection under those very freedoms. Thirty-five Navy Special Warfare servicemembers allege that the military's mandatory vaccination policy violates their religious freedoms under the First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Navy provides a religious accommodation process, but by all accounts, it is theater. The Navy has not granted a religious exemption to any vaccine in recent memory. It merely rubber stamps each denial. The Navy servicemembers in this case seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect.³ The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution.

Having considered the briefing, oral argument, relevant facts, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be and is hereby GRANTED .

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from the United States Navy's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Plaintiffs are thirty-five Navy Special Warfare servicemembers, including SEALs, Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewmen, Navy Divers, and an Explosive Ordinance Disposal Technician. Compl. 1, 8–9, ECF No. 1. Together, they sue President Biden, Secretary of Defense Austin, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro, and the United States Department of Defense.

A. Factual Background

1. The Navy's Vaccination Policy

In August 2021, the Department of Defense ("DoD") issued a vaccine mandate directing all DoD servicemembers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Pls.’ App. 146–47, ECF No. 17. The Department of the Navy also implemented its own mandate requiring all active-duty Navy servicemembers to be fully vaccinated before November 28 or face the "full range" of disciplinary action. Pls.’ App. 149–50, ECF No. 17. For servicemembers assigned to Special Operations duty, the Navy's vaccination policy reads:

[Special Operations] personnel refusing to receive recommended vaccines ... based solely on personal or religious beliefs are disqualified. This provision does not pertain to medical contraindications or allergies to vaccine administration.

Manual of the Medical Department ("MANMED") § 15-105(3)(n)(9); Pls.’ App. 838, ECF No. 17. In addition to those with medical exemptions, "[m]embers who are actively participating in COVID-19 clinical trials are exempted from mandatory vaccination" until the trial concludes. Pls.’ App. 149–50, ECF No. 17.

For those with pending religious exemption requests, being "disqualified" means becoming permanently nondeployable.⁴ Unlike those with medical exemptions and allergies to the vaccine, an unvaccinated servicemember seeking a religious exemption (the "religious servicemember") continues to be nondeployable, even if he receives the accommodation he requests. Pls.’ App. 159, 838 (Trident Order 12 – Mandatory Vaccination for COVID-19), ECF No. 17. To regain his "deployable" status, the religious servicemember must first receive his religious accommodation, and then seek a medical waiver under the Navy's MANMED. Defs.’ App. 278, ECF No. 44-3.

Each of these steps, by themselves, is monumental. Religious exemptions to the vaccine requirement are virtually non-existent. In the past seven years, the Navy has not granted a religious exemption to any vaccine requirement. Pls.’ App. 295, ECF No. 17.

2. Plaintiffs’ Religious Accommodations Requests

By early November, 99.4% of active-duty Navy servicemembers had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Pls.’ App. 284, ECF No. 17. Plaintiffs are part of the remaining 0.6%. Representing the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant branches of Christianity, Plaintiffs object to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine based on their religious beliefs. Id. These beliefs fall into the following categories: (1) opposition to abortion and the use of aborted fetal cell lines in development of the vaccine;⁵ (2) belief that modifying one's body is an afront to the Creator;⁶ (3) direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine;⁷ and (4) opposition to injecting trace amounts of animal cells into one's body.⁸ Plaintiffs’ beliefs about the vaccine are undisputedly sincere, and it is not the role of this Court to determine their truthfulness or accuracy. See Davis v. Fort Bend Cnty. , 765 F.3d 480, 487 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Ballard , 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148 (1944) ).

Plaintiffs filed their religious accommodation requests as early as August and as late as December. See Supp. Decl. of SEALs, SWCC, EOD, ND, Supp. App. 1023–1134. In many cases, the Plaintiffs’ commanding officers recommended their requests be approved. See Supp. Decl. of SEAL 18, Supp. App. 1075; Hr'g Test. of SEAL 3. Even so, as of December 17, the Navy has summarily denied at least twenty-nine of the thirty-five accommodations requests, the majority of which have been appealed. Supp. Decl. of SEALs, SWCC, EOD, ND, Supp. App. 1023–1134. The Navy has made no final determinations on appeal.

To adjudicate a religious accommodation request, the Navy uses a six-phase, fifty-step process. See Supp. Decl. of Andrew Stephens, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62. Although "all requests for accommodation of religious practices are assessed on a case-by-case basis," Phase 1 of the Navy guidance document instructs an administrator to update a prepared disapproval template with the requester's name and rank. Id. Based on this boilerplate rejection, Plaintiffs believe that this process is "pre-determined" and sidesteps the individualized review required by law. Id.

B. Procedural History

On November 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the Navy's vaccination mandate. See Compl. 38, ECF No. 1. In response to the Court's order for a status report, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 15), on November 24, 2021. Defendants responded on December 10. See Defs.’ Resp., ECF No. 43. Plaintiffs filed their reply December 17. See Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 58. The parties presented evidence and arguments before the Court in a hearing on December 20. See ECF No. 61. Accordingly, the Motion is now ripe for the Court's review.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" and will be granted only if the movants carry their burden on all four requirements. Nichols v. Alcatel USA, Inc. , 532 F.3d 364, 372 (5th Cir. 2008). The Court may issue a preliminary injunction if the movants establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm; (3) that the balance of hardships weighs in the movants’ favor; and (4) that the issuance of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C. , 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 2013) ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. "The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is discretionary with the district court." Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line , 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).

The movants must make a clear showing that the injunction is warranted, and the issuance of a preliminary injunction "is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule." Miss. Power & Light , 760 F.2d at 621. "Only in rare instances is the issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction proper." Harris v. Wilters , 596 F.2d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the vaccination policy, which they say violates RFRA and the First Amendment. Mot. 2, ECF No. 15; Pls.’ Br. 2, ECF No. 16. They also assert that the Defendants’ permanent medical-disqualification policy fails strict scrutiny. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not exhausted their intra-military remedies and that their claims are nonjusticiable. Even if these claims are reviewable, Defendants argue, a preliminary injunction would be inappropriate, because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.

A. Jurisdiction and Reviewability

There are two threshold questions before the Court. The first is whether this Court has jurisdiction over the parties, and the second is whether Plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable under the Mindes test.

1. Relief Against President

Citing Newdow v. Roberts , Defendants argue this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the President. 603 F.3d 1002, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("With regard to the President, courts do not have jurisdiction to enjoin him and have never submitted the President to declaratory relief." (citation...