U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 v. Austin

• Decision Date: 28 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O
• Parties: U.S. NAVY SEALS 1–26, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lloyd J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

594 F.Supp.3d 767

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

v.Lloyd J. AUSTIN, III, et al., Defendants.

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

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

Signed March 28, 2022

Michael Dan Berry, Danielle A. Runyan, Pro Hac Vice, David Jonathan Hacker, Hiram Stanley Sasser, III, Holly Mischelle Randall, Pro Hac Vice, 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, Daniel Luecke, Reginald Maurice Skinner, Zachary Anthony Avallone, Stuart Justin Robinson, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants Lloyd J. Austin, III, Carlos Del Toro.

Chad E. Meacham, US Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, Amy Elizabeth Powell, US Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, Andrew Evan Carmichael, Courtney Danielle Enlow, Stuart Justin Robinson, Zachary Anthony Avallone, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant United States Department of Defense.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Reed O'Connor, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 89), filed January 25, 2022, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 104), filed February 7, 2022.¹ Having considered the briefing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification should be and is hereby GRANTED in part. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction, but immediately STAYS the injunction "insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination

status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions." Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1–26 , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 1301, 212 L.Ed.2d 348 (2022).

I. BACKGROUND

On January 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, enjoining enforcement of the Navy's COVID-19 vaccination

policies against the thirty-five Plaintiffs, who object to the vaccine on religious grounds. See ECF No. 66. Since then, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants are violating the injunction by preventing some Plaintiffs from attending training, receiving medical treatment, or returning to their job duties. See Mot. for Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 95. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ allegations are meritless and feared outcomes are speculative. See Defs.’ Resp. 6–12, ECF No. 110. On January 24, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the injunction, asking the Court to allow Defendants to consider Plaintiffs’ vaccination status when making assignment decisions, including those involving deployment and training. ECF No. 85. The Court denied Defendants’ Motion on February 13, 2022. See ECF No. 116. Defendants appealed, and the Fifth Circuit likewise denied the Motion to Stay. See U.S. Navy Seals 1–26 v. Biden , 27 F.4th 336 (5th Cir. 2022). On March 7, Defendants submitted an Application for Partial Stay to the Supreme Court. See Appl. for Partial Stay, No. 21A477. The Supreme Court granted the partial stay of the preliminary injunction, "insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination

status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions." U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 , 142 S. Ct. 1301.

In the meantime, Plaintiffs decided to pursue a class action on behalf of 4,095 Navy servicemembers who have filed religious accommodation requests. Pls.’ Class Cert. Br. 7, ECF No. 90; see Defs.’ Ex. 4, App. 56, ECF No. 121. As of February 3, no requests had been granted, 3,728 had been denied, and 285 remained pending. Defs.’ Ex. 4, App. 56, ECF No. 121. Servicemembers have appealed 1,222 denials. Id. The Navy has "fully resolved" eighty-one appeals with final denials. Id. Meanwhile, the Navy has granted 263 permanent and temporary medical exemptions to the vaccine requirement. Id. SEALs 1–3 and EOD 1 ("Named Plaintiffs") filed this Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 89) and Motion for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 104), both of which are now ripe for the Court's review.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Class Certification

"The class action is ‘an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.’ " Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 348, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (citation omitted). The party seeking class certification "bear[s] the burden of proof to establish that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23." M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry , 675 F.3d 832, 837 (5th Cir. 2012). "The decision to certify is within the broad discretion of the court, but that discretion must be exercised within the framework of rule 23." Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co. , 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard , 452 U.S. 89, 100, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981) ). A district court must "look beyond the pleadings to ‘understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination’ " of the certification issues. Stukenberg , 675 F.3d at 837 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Court also "has discretion to modify [a party's] proposed class and subclass to form workable class definitions." Jones v. Realpage, Inc. , No. 3:19-cv-2087, 2021 WL 852218 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (cleaned up) (citing In re Monumental Life Ins. , 365 F.3d 408, 414 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2004) ). "This discretion extends to creating subclasses, as well as to modifying an approved class." William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 7:27 (5th ed. 2021) (footnote omitted). The Fifth Circuit provides broad discretion to district courts, permitting them "to limit or modify class definitions to provide the necessary precision." Monumental Life Ins. , 365 F.3d at 414 (citing Robidoux v. Celani , 987 F.2d 931, 937 (2d Cir. 1993) ("A court is not bound by the class definition proposed in the complaint and should not dismiss the action simply because the complaint seeks to define the class too broadly.")).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs whether a proposed class falls within this limited exception. "To obtain class certification, parties must satisfy Rule 23(a) ’s four threshold requirements, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3)." Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found. , 493 F.3d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 2007). Rule 23(a) ’s four threshold requirements are:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These four threshold conditions are "commonly known as ‘numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.’ " Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc. , 946 F.3d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has articulated an "ascertainability" doctrine implicit in Rule 23. John v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. , 501 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2007) ("The existence of an ascertainable class of persons to be represented by the proposed class representative is an implied prerequisite of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23."). "[T]o maintain a class action, the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable." DeBremaecker v. Short , 433 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cir. 1970) (per curiam).

A plaintiff seeking certification must also satisfy at least one of the grounds identified in Rule 23(b). Rule 23(b)(2) applies where the four threshold requirements are met and "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). This requirement is satisfied "when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class." Wal–Mart , 564 U.S. at 360, 131 S.Ct. 2541.

B. Preliminary Injunction

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 Servs., 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

A. Class Certification

Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify one class and two subclasses: (1) a class of all Navy servicemembers subject to the vaccine mandate who have submitted...