142 S.Ct. 1301
SCOTUS2022Background
- In Aug 2021 the Navy required COVID‑19 vaccination for personnel; refusal was treated as failure to obey a lawful order and could lead to punitive separation.
- The Navy implemented a multi‑step religious‑exemption process (described as a 50‑step procedure) that the district court found was effectively designed to deny virtually all requests.
- Thirty‑five Naval Special Warfare members (respondents) sued, alleging RFRA and Free Exercise Clause violations; the district court preliminarily enjoined the Navy from taking adverse actions against them for being unvaccinated.
- The Government appealed and sought a stay; the Supreme Court granted a partial stay (per the Government’s requested language) staying the injunction insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering vaccination status in deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions pending appeal/ certiorari.
- Justice Kavanaugh concurred, stressing Article II military authority and deference to commanders; Justice Alito (joined by Gorsuch) dissented, arguing the stay permits career‑ending ‘‘warehousing’’ and that respondents are likely to prevail under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether RFRA/Free Exercise bar the Navy from punishing unvaccinated members absent least‑restrictive means showing | Respondents: RFRA applies; vaccination mandate and the sham denial process substantially burden religion and fail strict scrutiny | Government: Military readiness and preventing COVID‑19 are compelling interests; operational control and deference to commanders justify denials | Supreme Court (per curiam stay): Granted partial stay so Navy may consider vaccination status for deployment, assignment, and operational decisions pending appeal; full merits unresolved |
| 2. Whether courts should intrude on military command decisions in national‑security contexts | Respondents: Civil‑liberties review still applies; military deference cannot nullify RFRA/First Amendment protections | Government: Article II Commander‑in‑Chief and military expertise warrant high deference; courts traditionally refrain from second‑guessing military judgments | Kavanaugh concurrence: Emphasized strong deference to military judgments; allowed stay to avoid judicial interference |
| 3. Whether the Navy’s exemption process violated equal treatment principles (medical vs religious exemptions) | Respondents: Medical exemptions were actively considered and often granted while religious requests were systematically denied—showing discriminatory treatment | Government: Implementation reflects operational and medical judgments tied to readiness and deployability | Dissent (Alito): Found likely RFRA/Free Exercise success and unequal treatment meriting continued injunction beyond narrow mission‑critical contexts |
| 4. Scope of equitable relief appropriate pending appeal (deployment/assignment/operational decisions) | Respondents: District court injunction properly limited and did not interfere with strategic decisions; broader stay risks indefinite career harm | Government: Needs broad authority to assign/deploy for operational readiness; requested language to permit operational decision‑making | Court: Adopted Government’s requested partial stay language; dissent would have limited relief to mission‑critical deployments only |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (courts reluctant to intrude on military/national‑security decisions)
- Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973) (military composition and control are professional judgments)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson concurrence on deference to Presidential control of military instruments)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (standards for issuing a stay pending appeal)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RFRA/strict‑scrutiny framework and least‑restrictive‑means analysis)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA applies to federal law challenges and protects religious exercise)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (Free Exercise basics and neutrality/ generally applicable rules)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (strict scrutiny where laws target religious conduct)
- Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) (deferential review of military regulations affecting constitutional rights)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (civilian courts may review military personnel constitutional claims)
- Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. _ (2022) (recent RFRA/First Amendment application illustrating strict scrutiny in sensitive contexts)