115 F.4th 660
5th Cir.2024Background
- The case arises from the U.S. Air Force's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all service members to be vaccinated, with limited religious exemptions.
- Plaintiffs—all members or former members of the Air Force—alleged that the vaccine mandate and the process for religious exemptions violated their rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Following congressional action, the Air Force rescinded the mandate and removed adverse actions for most plaintiffs; one plaintiff (Starks) had been discharged with a general discharge before this occurred.
- The district court dismissed Starks’s claims for lack of standing post-separation and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the court dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims as moot due to rescission of the mandate.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing ongoing injury from the Air Force’s religious accommodation process, not just the rescinded mandate.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo both the standing and mootness determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starks' Standing post-separation | Starks suffered actual harm (general discharge) traceable to mandate | Discharge was due to unrelated medical issue, not mandate | Starks has standing; alleged injury is sufficient |
| Exhaustion of Remedies for RFRA claims | RFRA claims are not subject to intraservice exhaustion | Mindes doctrine requires exhaustion before suit | RFRA claims not subject to Mindes; exhaustion not required |
| Mootness after vaccine mandate rescission | Ongoing harm due to sham religious exemption process | All adverse actions redressed; mandate gone; no live controversy | Case is not moot; plaintiffs plausibly allege ongoing injury |
| Scope of Relief/Justiciability | Broader policy and process is still unlawful | Only mandate, not processes, was challenged and then mooted | District court erred; claims re: broader policy remain justiciable |
Key Cases Cited
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (standing requires concrete and actual injury)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (RFRA provides broad protection for religious liberty)
- Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (courts have an unflagging obligation to exercise granted jurisdiction)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (case is moot if no effectual relief is possible)
- Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (interest must persist throughout the case, or it is moot)