Roberts v. Roth
Civil Action No. 2021-1797
| D.D.C. | Mar 21, 2022Background
- Capt. Travis Roberts, an officer in the Arkansas Air National Guard, sought a religious exemption from required immunizations in December 2018, objecting to certain injections and use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development.
- His exemption request was denied through multiple levels of command and by the Air Force Surgeon General after administrative review and appeal.
- Roberts refused the ordered immunizations, received a letter of reprimand, and the Arkansas ANG convened a Withdrawal of Federal Recognition (WOFR) Board, which recommended his honorable discharge.
- The WOFR recommendation was forwarded through state-level officials and approved for recommendation, but the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) — which makes the final discharge determination — had not yet issued a final decision.
- Roberts filed suit on July 6, 2021 alleging Free Exercise and RFRA violations and sought injunctive relief; the court consolidated consideration of the preliminary injunction with the merits.
- The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ripeness), concluding the claimed injury (discharge) was not certainly impending and, alternatively, that prudential ripeness counseled against review while administrative decisionmaking remained pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional ripeness (Article III standing/imminence) | Roberts contends discharge is effectively certain and imminent based on WOFR recommendation and other record evidence. | Defendants contend no final agency action has occurred: WOFR issued only a recommendation and the SAFPC retains final authority; thus no certainly impending injury. | Court: Not constitutionally ripe; no jurisdiction because discharge not final. |
| Prudential ripeness / fitness for review | Roberts argues hardship from delay and seeks prompt judicial relief. | Defendants argue judicial review would interfere with ongoing administrative process and agency should finalize decision first. | Court: Would decline jurisdiction on prudential grounds as well; allow administrative process to conclude. |
| Preliminary relief (injunction/TRO) | Roberts sought TRO/PI to prevent discharge and obtain religious waiver. | Defendants opposed, citing lack of final decision and jurisdiction. | Court: TRO portion withdrawn; PI not reached on merits because case dismissed for non‑ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (threshold question in every federal case is whether court has judicial power to hear the suit)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (ripeness doctrine protects agencies from premature judicial interference)
- Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 683 F.3d 382 (prudential ripeness factors and balancing)
- Toms v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 650 F. Supp. 2d 11 (recommendations by administrative officers are not final decisions)
- Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (deference to military authorities)
- Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (judicial restraint in military affairs)