Coast Guard members still fighting vaccine mandate encouraged to consider joining class action lawsuit
Members of the U.S. Coast Guard who sought a religious accommodation request (RAR) from the U.S. Department of Defense COVID-19 vaccine mandate and were denied are encouraged to consider joining a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas More Society. The Chicago-based nonprofit legal organization filed a class action lawsuit against the Coast Guard, Stone et al. v. Mayorkas, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on September 16. The lawsuit challenges the Coast Guard’s broad denial of RARs to the DOD mandate. The plaintiffs are facing involuntary discharge because they argue they are being forced to take an experimental drug that was developed with or tested on aborted fetal cell lines, which they argue violates their religious conscience and is contrary to their faith. According to court filings, the Coast Guard hasn’t disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs, it’s just issued across-the-board denials of their RARs. The Department of Defense continues to maintain that the mandate is necessary for military readiness and that U.S. district court judges don’t have jurisdiction to oversee military policy. In several cases in several jurisdictions, all federal judges have disagreed with the DOD’s position, each handing different military branches ongoing losses in court. A DOD Inspector General also found that U.S. military officials in all branches violated federal law by issuing widespread denials of RARs. Still, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a memorandum to initiate separation proceedings to active duty and reserve members who refused to take the vaccine and who filed an RAR that was denied. One plaintiff in the class, Alaric Stone, says he’s suing because he joined the Coast Guard because of his faith and “Now I find myself in a situation where I am being forced to choose between my faith and service to my country; it’s truly heartbreaking. “I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and religious freedom is a cornerstone of our Constitutional guarantees.” Two weeks after TMS filed its class action lawsuit, the Coast Guard agreed to defer its Inactive Status List transfer date to December 1 for all 122 putative class member reservists who’d been given an October 1 transfer date. The agreement will give them temporary relief, including allowing them to continue receiving an income while the court considers pending motions in the case. TMS Senior Counsel Stephen Crampton notes it’s only temporary and only applies to a few out of many in dire situations. “We continue to hear every day from additional service members facing imminent discharge or transfer orders,” Crampton said. “These agreements with the Department of Justice underscore the serious and irreparable harm that Coast Guard service members continue to face and point to the need for court- The Coast Guard “has made threats, and carried out threats, to punish service members” who apply for RARs, including denying them schooling, promotion, and assignments, he said. They’ve been “formally reprimanded and threatened with involuntary discharge,” even after the latest Centers for Disease Control prevention guidelines were issued, “which recommend no longer differentiating based on a person’s vaccination status, Crampton said. TMS also notes that while the Coast Guard has insisted on “forcing these brave and principled service members out,” it’s also acknowledged that “it faces an urgent shortfall in personnel and recruiting. “The actions of both the government and the Coast Guard in this situation are ridiculous as well as illogical,” Crampton said. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that denying RARs due to “speculation” and “conjecture” about hypothetical future harms, another argument used by the DOD and military branches to enforce the mandate, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment. In order to accommodate the increasing number of service personnel in need of legal assistance who continue to be impacted by the Coast Guard’s refusal to approve RARs, TMS created a portal for service members to use to be considered to join its class action lawsuit. The portal states, “If you are a member of the Coast Guard who sought a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, we encourage you (but you are not obligated) to fill out the form on this page. If you have received a specific date of discharge or date of transfer to the Inactive Status List (ISL), please specify.” The class action names Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Defense Lloyd Austin, Commandant of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan, and Assistant Commandant for Human Resources Coast Guard Brian Penoyer as defendants. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Judge blasts Air Force over denying vaccine religious exemption requests, grants injunction
U.S. District Court Judge Tilman Self, III, is the first to stop the U.S. Air Force from enforcing its military COVID-19 vaccine mandate on a service member. Self granted a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Defense on behalf of an Air Force officer who’d been denied a religious exemption to the mandate. As a result, the DOD can’t enforce the mandate or take any adverse action against her, including forcing her to retire. At the beginning of his 32-page order, the judge describes how the plaintiff’s chain of command justified why she was denied a religious exemption: “Your religious beliefs are sincere. It’s just not compatible with military service.” “That’s about as blunt as it gets,” Self wrote in his ruling. “True, he undoubtedly spoke for himself, but when considering the Air Force’s abysmal record regarding religious accommodations requests, it turns out he was dead on target.” Although the Air Force has claimed to provide a religious accommodation process, “it proved to be nothing more than a quixotic quest for Plaintiff because it was ‘by all accounts, . . . theater,’” Self wrote, citing U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s January 3, 2022, assessment in another case, U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 v. Biden, on the U.S. Navy’s religious accommodation process, or lack thereof. In the Navy SEAL case, the latest filings received by the court as of February 4 reveal that out of 24,818 religious exemption requests the four branches received, only four were granted. While religious exemptions continued to be denied, 4,146 medical exemptions were granted. “Despite thousands of requests for religious exemption, the Air Force hadn’t granted a single one of them when Plaintiff filed her Complaint,” Self, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, said. At the end of the hearing on the preliminary injunction request, Self said he informed the parties that he’d closed the window to receive evidence. But six days later, the Biden administration ignored his decision. “Undeterred, Defendants filed the Declaration of Colonel Jason A. Holbrook … six days later, informing the Court that “as of February 4, 2022, nine . . . religious accommodation requests . . . have been approved within’ the Air Force,” he said. By adding this evidence, Self said, “That raises the Air Force’s percentage of granted religious exemptions from 0.00% to about 0.24%. So, suffice it to say, Defendants’ last-minute efforts to inject something new into the record doesn’t change the Court’s opinion because what Col. Holbrook’s declaration doesn’t tell the Court is when the Air Force granted these nine religious exemptions.” Since the Air Force didn’t state when the requests were granted, Self decided to find out for himself. He looked up the data on the Air Force’s COVID-19 website and discovered that as of January 31, 2022, “the Air Force had yet to approve a single religious exemption.” “In other words, the Air Force granted these nine exemptions in the last two weeks,” he said. Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Stephen Crampton notes that the Air Force had granted over 1,500 medical exemptions by the time they filed the lawsuit, but not one religious exemption had been granted. Self’s scathing rebuke was rendered in a case filed on January 6 by Thomas More Society on behalf of an officer who served her country for over 25 years. The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Air Force and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and alleges that the U.S. Military is violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The officer objects to taking the COVID-19 shots due to their association with aborted fetal cells and filed for a religious exemption. Although she’s been willing and able to work remotely, wear a mask, and test periodically, the Air Force issued a final denial of her religious exemption request in December. When denying her appeal, she was given less than one week to decide to take the vaccine, submit a retirement request, or refuse the shot in writing. The Air Force also informed her that “any refusal to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, absent an approved exemption, may be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . .” and that “continued refusal will result in involuntary reassignment to the Individual Ready Reserve without pay, benefits, or regular responsibilities,” according to the brief. The plaintiff argues the Air Force’s policy is forcing her to choose between her job and her faith, and the Constitution and RFRA protect her from having to make this choice. She argues that she “has a sincere religious belief that prohibits her from submitting to an injection of any of the presently available COVID-19 vaccines” and the Air Force’s requirement puts “substantial pressure” on her “to modify [her] behavior and to violate [her] beliefs.” Self said, “A classic case of ‘substantial pressures’ occurs when a person has to choose between her job and her religion,” and the Defendants “don’t say much in response” to this argument. “In fact, as of February 7, 2022, “the Air Force has administratively separated 142 active-duty Airmen” for refusing to take a vaccine,” he points out, citing Air Force data. “And, how could they?” he asks. “Very few scenarios paint a bleaker picture than giving up your livelihood in order to follow your religious beliefs.” Crampton said it’s “disgraceful how the military, in general, has disrespected fundamental First Amendment rights. We are grateful that the court has restored the Free Exercise rights of this courageous officer and are hopeful that her victory will help to protect the rights of conscientious objectors everywhere.” The lawsuit is one of many filed after Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued an August 24 memo directing “the Secretaries of the Military Departments to immediately begin full vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces under DoD authority on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard, who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19.” The White House and Austin have
