Gamberzky v. National Guard Bureau
8:23-cv-02682
| M.D. Fla. | May 29, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Andrew Gamberzky and Anna Paulina Luna sued the Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, and United States Air Force over the now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging violations under the First Amendment and RFRA.
- Gamberzky, a practicing Christian, requested a religious exemption from the mandate, claiming the vaccine conflicted with his and his wife's religious beliefs.
- His request for a religious exemption was denied, leading to what he alleged was a forced resignation from military service, with financial and career losses.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and money damages for harm from the denial of exemption and resulting alleged constructive discharge.
- The government moved to dismiss, arguing the vaccine mandate’s rescission mooted the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief and that sovereign immunity barred damages claims against federal agencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Injunctive Relief Claims | Gamberzky’s claims not addressed as moot | Claims are moot due to mandate rescission | Claims for injunctive relief are dismissed as moot |
| Damages under RFRA/Sovereign Immunity | Damages available under Tanzin v. Tanvir | No waiver of sovereign immunity for agencies | No damages; sovereign immunity bars such claims |
| Damages vs. Individual vs. Official Defendants | RFRA permits damages vs. officials in individual capacity | Plaintiffs sued only agencies, not individuals | Only agencies sued; Tanzin inapplicable |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction present due to RFRA claim | Barred by sovereign immunity | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (A waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text.)
- Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (Waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the sovereign.)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (Ambiguities in statutory waivers of sovereign immunity favor the government.)
- FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (Any ambiguities in statutory language are construed in favor of immunity.)