27 F.4th 336
5th Cir.2022Background
- The Navy (DoD) mandated COVID-19 vaccination for service members via ALNAV and NAVADMIN orders and MANMED provisions; noncompliance could lead to administrative or punitive actions including non-deployability and separation.
- Plaintiffs are 35 Naval Special Warfare personnel (SEALs, SWCC, EOD, divers) who objected to COVID-19 vaccination on sincerely held religious grounds and each filed religious-accommodation requests.
- The Navy reportedly has denied every religious-exemption request for vaccines in the last seven years, and its multi-step accommodation process uses uniform denial templates; by contrast it granted hundreds of medical exemptions.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined the Navy/DoD from enforcing certain vaccine-related regulations against the 35 Plaintiffs and from taking adverse action based on their religious-accommodation requests, finding exhaustion futile and RFRA claims likely to succeed.
- The government appealed and sought a partial stay to permit the Navy to consider Plaintiffs’ vaccination status for deployment, assignment, and operational decisions while the appeal proceeds.
- The Fifth Circuit denied the partial stay, holding the dispute justiciable and that the government failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm sufficient to overcome Plaintiffs’ RFRA/First Amendment interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability / Military-abstention (Mindes) | Plaintiffs argue RFRA and First Amendment claims are judicially reviewable; exhaustion is futile because Navy uniformly denies religious exemptions. | Defendants argue courts should abstain from intramilitary matters and require exhaustion under Mindes. | Court: Claims are justiciable; Mindes does not bar review where claims are constitutional, administrative remedies are futile, and interference with military functions is not substantial. |
| Substantial burden under RFRA | Vaccination requirement substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincere religious exercise by forcing injection contrary to belief. | Navy does not dispute burden but emphasizes institutional readiness and health interests. | Court: Plaintiffs shown to face substantial burden on religious exercise. |
| Compelling interest / least restrictive means | Plaintiffs: Navy failed to show a compelling, individualized interest in denying exemptions; process is underinclusive and not individualized (medical exemptions exist). | Defendants: Mandatory vaccination is necessary to protect mission success and crew health, especially in small special-operations units. | Court: Government failed to show a compelling interest in forcing vaccination of these 35 sailors or that blanket denials are least restrictive means; underinclusiveness and lack of individualized reasoning fatal. |
| Stay factors (Nken: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance/public interest) | Plaintiffs: Denial of injunction would irreparably harm religious freedom; public interest favors protecting First Amendment/RFRA rights. | Defendants: Navy will be irreparably harmed and missions endangered if restricted from considering vaccination status for deployments/assignments. | Court: Government did not show likelihood of success or irreparable injury; Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable First Amendment/RFRA harm; public interest disfavors stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (standard for stay pending appeal and stay factors)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (factors for stay consideration)
- Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971) (military-abstention/exhaustion framework)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (RFRA/RLUIPA heightened protection and individualized scrutiny)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (government must show compelling interest as applied to particular claimant)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (RFRA protection and analysis of burden)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (foundational test for compelling interest in religious-exercise contexts)
- Von Hoffburg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1980) (exhaustion/futility in military context)