When the United States military mandated COVID-19 vaccinations and categorically denied religious accommodations, servicemembers whose religious beliefs disallowed vaccination had a choice: abandon their sincerely held beliefs or face severe consequences. The thirty-five plaintiffs—and later over 4,300 class members—in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden sued the government, claiming this choice violated their constitutional rights.

On August 24, 2021, the Secretary of Defense mandated that every member of every branch of the U.S. military receive a COVID-19 vaccination. The Secretary of the Navy soon followed suit with his own mandate. The Navy’s mandate contained three enforcement policies especially worrisome to those whose religious beliefs would not allow them to receive the vaccine. (1) Servicemembers who refused vaccination without an exemption would be dishonorably separated from service, meaning likely loss of veterans’ benefits and a possible requirement to repay their training costs—potentially millions of dollars. (2) Unvaccinated servicemembers seeking a religious exemption could not reenlist, execute orders, be promoted, or deploy. (3) Even if a servicemember received a religious exemption, he or she would remain ineligible to deploy.

Thirty-five servicemembers—including Navy SEALs, Special Operators, and Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen—sued, alleging that the mandates violated both the First Amendment and RFRA. Plaintiffs also requested a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the Navy mandate’s punitive policies and to enjoin any adverse action based on vaccination status.

Within weeks, the District Court granted the injunction and condemned the Navy’s “rubber stamp[]” process of denying religious accommodations because, “by all accounts, the religious accommodation process was theater.” (Notably, despite granting thousands of non-religious exemptions, the Navy did not grant a single religious exemption until after this litigation began.) When the Navy appealed, a motions panel at the Fifth Circuit echoed the lower court’s concerns as it denied the Navy’s motion to stay the injunction. “[The Navy] has not accommodated any religious objection to any vaccine in seven years, preventing those seeking such accommodations from even being considered for medical waivers.” But when the Navy appealed to the Supreme Court for a “partial stay,” the Court granted a portion of the Navy’s request “insofar as [the injunction] precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making . . . operational decisions.”

In dissent, Justice Alito warned that “the Court’s order essentially gives the Navy carte blanche to warehouse respondents for the duration of the appellate process, which may take years.” Furthermore, he said, the Navy’s “summary rejection” of accommodation requests was certainly not the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests, and thus was unlikely to succeed in defeating the RFRA claims. Alito echoed the lower courts’ theme condemning the Navy’s process for reviewing accommodations:

I cannot believe that this Court would tolerate such treatment in other contexts. Suppose, for example, that a federal agency processed employee complaints about discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability using a 50-step process in which rejection was presumed until the very last step, and suppose that the record showed that this procedure nearly always resulted in the denial of a claim. We would be outraged—and rightfully so. Why, then, is the Court willing to brush aside what appears to have occurred here?

Before the Supreme Court’s decision on March 25, 2022, plaintiffs had moved to certify a class and extend the relief to all Navy servicemembers who requested religious accommodations. That motion was granted on March 28, 2022, and the class covered more than 4,300 sailors. The Navy appealed both the class certification and the extension of injunctive relief to the class.

Soon after, President Biden signed the 2023 NDAA, which directed the Secretary of Defense to rescind the vaccine mandate. Almost immediately, the Defense and Navy Secretaries reversed course and halted separations and adverse actions based solely on vaccination status.

With the government’s appeal still pending at the Fifth Circuit, plaintiffs claimed the case was not moot because the challenged actions were 1) voluntarily ceased and 2) capable of repetition yet evading review (exceptions to mootness), but the court rejected these arguments. Plaintiffs, it said, bore the heavy burden of overcoming the court’s presumption that state actors act in good faith rather than as mere litigation posturing. As to whether the challenged actions were capable of repetition yet evading review, the court thought that the Navy would not evade review because the issues could be relitigated in the district court and appealed.

The Navy also asked the Fifth Circuit to vacate its previous denial of a stay, which the court declined to do. To Judge Ho, who dissented from the mootness decision, the Navy’s request was evidence against its sincerity in voluntarily ceasing its conduct. After correcting its actions by rescinding mandates and policies, he argued, “the Navy could just ask us to dismiss the appeal.” Instead, the Navy reaffirmed its position and denied any error.

On remand, the district court found the case not moot as to unaddressed issues arising out of the Navy’s  broader religious accommodations process that was left undisturbed by the 2023 NDAA:

For example, Plaintiffs contend that Class Members are one to three years behind their peers, which carries increased potential for placement on a separation track for some and potentially impacts pension benefits for others who are close to retirement. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that there is no post-Mandate policy preventing consideration of vaccination status in promotions and non-operational assignments, which allows for continued discrimination. And, finally, Plaintiffs allege that the Navy has insufficiently implemented a review process to purge negative notations in each Class Member’s file, particularly given that there has always been a dispute about what constitutes “adverse action.”

Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing satisfies the Court that, “[w]hile the Mandate may be gone, the effects of that Mandate and the discriminatory treatment the Class Members were subject to because of the Mandate still linger.”

In summer 2024, plaintiffs and the Navy agreed to a court-approved Settlement Agreement addressing the remaining claims described by the district court. The settlement provided relief and protected over 4,300 careers, thus preventing the Navy’s “warehous[ing]” of personnel that Justice Alito feared. The Agreement provides six meaningful wins for the class members:

  1. Personnel files will be reviewed to ensure adverse information related to non-compliance with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is permanently removed;
  2. Protective language will be included in the precepts of the next three years of selective board convening orders to ensure adverse information related to COVID-19 vaccine refusal in instances where a religious accommodation was requested is not considered;
  3. DD-214s will be updated to remove any indication that a Class Member was discharged for misconduct;
  4. Reenlistment codes will be updated to allow Class Members who were discharged to apply to rejoin the Navy;
  5. Training on religious accommodation requests will be posted on the Navy’s public website; and 
  6. A statement regarding the value religious service members provide to the Navy also will be posted on the Navy’s public website. 

COVID-19 vaccination is not the first issue to challenge the balance of public health, military readiness, and personal religious freedom—and it will not be the last. But when future issues arise, U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden will serve as a reminder to the government that, despite its asserted compelling interests, servicemembers cannot be required to abandon their faith to serve our nation.

Disclosure: The authors represented the religious servicemembers in this litigation. More information about the Settlement Agreement and scope of relief can be found at First Liberty’s dedicated webpage, NavyVaxSettlement.com.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].