Liberty Counsel Military Complaint

Case 8:21-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 1 of 120 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy, NAVY )

SEAL 2, United States Navy, EOD OFFICER, )
United States Navy, SENIOR CHIEF PETTY )
OFFICER, United States Navy, CHAPLAIN, )
United States Navy, LIEUTENANT COLONEL ) Case No. ___________________
1, United States Marine Corps, LIEUTENANT )
COLONEL 2, United States Marine Corps, )
MAJOR, United States Marine Corps, SECOND )
LIEUTENANT, United States Marine Corps, )
CAPTAIN, United States Marine Corps, ARMY )
RANGER, United States Army, LANCE )
CORPORAL 1, United States Marine Corps, )
LANCE CORPORAL 2, United States Marine )
Corps, MAJOR, United States Air Force, )
NATIONAL GUARDSMAN, Virginia Army )
National Guard, COAST GUARD )
LIEUTENANT, United States Coast Guard, )
COLONEL, United States Army, TECHNICAL )
SERGEANT, United States Air Force, DEFENSE )
DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR, United States )
Department of Defense, FEDERAL CIVILIAN )
ENGINEER CONTRACTOR, FEDERAL )
CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER, )
FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR )
EMPLOYEE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )
CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECH, for themselves )
and all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
)
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as )
President of the United States, LLOYD AUSTIN, )
in his official capacity as Secretary of the United )
States Department of Defense, and ALEJANDRO )
MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary )
of the Department of Homeland Security, )
)
Defendants. )
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND

PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
“Our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights

simply because they doffed their civilian clothes.”1
For their VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendants,
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States, LLOYD
AUSTIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Defense, and ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, Plaintiffs, NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy,
NAVY SEAL 2, United States Navy, NAVY EOD OFFICER, United States Navy,
CHIEF PETTY OFFICER, United States Navy, CHAPLAIN, United States Navy,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1, United States Marine Corps, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL 2, United States Marine Corps, SECOND LIEUTENANT, United States
Marine Corps, MAJOR, United States Marine Corps, CAPTAIN, United States
Marine Corps, ARMY RANGER, United States Army, LANCE CORPORAL 1,
United States Marine Corps, LANCE CORPORAL 2, United States Marine Corps,
MAJOR, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, NATIONAL GUARDSMAN, Virginia
Army National Guard, LIEUTENANT, United States Coast Guard, COLONEL,
United States Army, TECHNICAL SERGEANT, United States Air Force,
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR, United States Department of
1
Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 304 (1983) (citing E. Warren, The Bill of Rights
and the Military, 37 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 181, 188 (1962)).
2
Defense, FEDERAL CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR, FEDERAL
CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER, FEDERAL NUCLEAR
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN
NUCLEAR TECH, for themselves and all others similarly situated, (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege and aver
as follows:
URGENCIES JUSTIFYING EMERGENCY RELIEF
“The Executive Order mandating vaccinations

for all federal employees has provided clear direction. . . .
Frankly, if you are not vaccinated, you will not work for the U.S. Navy.”2
1. Plaintiffs are United States Armed Forces servicemembers, federal
employees, and federal civilian contractors who face a deadline under the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that violates their
sincerely held religious beliefs, and have been refused any religious exemption or
accommodation. United States Navy and United States Marine Corps servicemembers
have until November 28 to become fully vaccinated. United States Army and United
States Air Force servicemembers have until December 15. United States Coast Guard
servicemembers have until November 22. And civilian federal employees and
contractors have until November 22. These are the terminal dates after which
2
Vice Admiral William Galinis, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA), ALL HANDS NOTE (10/14/2021) COMNAVSEA Vaccination Message (Oct.
14, 2021) (warning entire command, comprising more than 85,000 civilian and
military personnel).
3
discipline will unquestionably be imposed, but the effective due date for the one-
dose Johnson and Johnson (J&J) shot is earlier, and earlier still for the first of two
Pfizer or Moderna shots. Missing the earlier due dates will necessarily result in
discipline at the terminal dates. Moreover, the pressure and abuse are intense, and
disciplinary actions have already commenced for some. Relief is needed now to
prevent these military heroes, federal employees, and federal contractors from facing
punishments including dishonorable discharge, court martial, other life-altering
disciplinary procedures, and termination.
2. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends.” John 15:13 (KJV). Servicemember Plaintiffs have all agreed, voluntarily and
sacrificially, to devote their entire lives by this axiomatic truth, regardless of the cost
to them personally or to their families who likewise sacrifice in defense of this Nation.
They all have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States, to sacrificially lay down their lives for their fellow citizens against enemies both
foreign and domestic, and to preserve for our progeny the heritage and treasure passed
down to them by Veterans of old. And, for that ultimate sacrifice in defense of the
Constitution and our freedoms, Defendants are threatening these military heroes
with dishonorable discharge for even requesting a religious exemption from the
COVID-19 shots. Dishonorable discharge is worse than criminal conviction for
these servicemembers because it is a badge of disgrace that follows them for the rest
of their lives. Having sacrificed everything to defend America and its citizenry—and while
4
carrying the images and sounds of war with them throughout their lives—America, the “land of
the free and the home of the brave,” would betray them with the worst punishment of
dishonorable discharge. And for what cause? Simply because they seek an accommodation from
the COVID-19 shots on account of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
3. The deadlines for servicemember Plaintiffs to receive the COVID-19
shots are fast approaching in October and November. No servicemembers should be
forced to choose between dishonorable discharge by the Nation they love or sinning against God
by violating their sincere religious beliefs (which, by the way, can be easily accommodated). This
Court must protect the rights of these military heroes and remove from the Republic
the stain of government coercion of conscience.
4. As the Supreme Court has long affirmed, the heroes of the United States
Armed Forces do not shed their constitutional rights at the moment of their
sacrificial oath. Indeed, “[t]his Court has never held, nor do we now hold, that
military personnel are barred from all redress in civilian courts for constitutional
wrongs suffered in the course of military service.” Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296,
304 (1983).
5. Moreover, while servicemembers certainly have duties and
responsibilities “without counterpart in civilian life,” Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420
U.S. 738, 757 (1975), the Constitution still provides them with the same blanket of
constitutional protection that their dedicated service and sacrifice provide to the
average civilian. For to turn the same Constitution that United States Armed Forces
5
members protect and defend into a weapon against them would be a travesty unknown
to the Nation’s founding charter and eclipse any dereliction of duty heretofore seen in
the great experiment of America. Indeed, as Justice Brennan noted,
Military (or national) security is a weighty interest, not least

of all because national survival is an indispensable
condition of national liberties. But the concept of military
necessity is seductively broad, and has a dangerous
plasticity. Because they invariably have the visage of
overriding importance, there is always a temptation to
invoke security “necessities” to justify an encroachment
upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security
argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism:
its very gravity counsels that courts be cautious when
military necessity is invoked by the Government to justify
a trespass on First Amendment rights.
Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 369 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (emphasis added)
(citation omitted).
6. As he continued,
To be sure, generals and admirals, not federal judges, are

expert about military needs. But it is equally true that
judges, not military officers, possess the competence and
authority to interpret and apply the First Amendment.
Moreover, in the context of this case, the expertise of
military officials is, to a great degree, tainted by the natural
self-interest that inevitably influences their exercise of the
power to control expression. Partiality must be expected
when government authorities censor the views of
subordinates, especially if those views are critical of the
censors. Larger, but vaguely defined, interests in
discipline or military efficiency may all too easily become
identified with officials' personal or bureaucratic
preferences. This Court abdicates its responsibility to
safeguard free expression when it reflexively bows before
the shibboleth of military necessity.
6
Id. at 370.
7. Servicemembers who protect the constitutional freedoms cherished in
this Nation can also invoke those same constitutional protections for breaches of their
own liberties, despite military service. Here, Defendants have made it clear that they
think servicemember Plaintiffs’ sacrificial act of swearing an oath to protect the Nation
and support and defend the Constitution is accompanied by the sacrificial surrender
of those same constitutional protections they defend. The Constitution opposes such
callous indifference to sacrificial service, and so, too, should this Court. Indeed,
“military life do[es] not, of course, render entirely nugatory in the military context the
guarantees of the First Amendment.” Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986).
See also Crawford v. Cushman, 531 F.2d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1976) (“[T]he military is
subject to the Bill of Rights and its constitutional implications.” (emphasis added)).
Put simply, “although First Amendment rights . . . may be ‘less’ for a soldier than a
civilian, they are by no means lost to him.” Anderson v. Laird, 466 F.2d 283, 295 (D.C.
Cir. 1972). “Individual freedom may not be sacrificed to military interests to the
point that constitutional rights are abolished.” Id. (emphasis added).
8. Servicemember Plaintiffs and all those dedicated members of the United
States Armed Forces voluntarily and sacrificially answered their Nation’s call to
defend the freedoms we enjoy. Yet, Defendants are demanding that these brave
military members sacrifice their constitutional rights which they risk their lives to
defend. Indeed, “[i]t is a basic tenet of our legal system that a government agency is
7
not at liberty to ignore its own laws and that agency action in contravention of
applicable statutes and regulations is unlawful. The military departments enjoy no
immunity from this proscription.” Dilley v. Alexander, 603 F.2d 914, 920 (D.C. Cir.
1979) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). For without question, when critical
constitutional rights are at issue, “the Supreme Court [has] heard numerous
constitutional challenges to military policies.” Singh v. Carter, 168 F. Supp. 3d 216, 225
(D.D.C. 2016) (cleaned up).
9. As the Supreme Court held just last year, “even in a pandemic, the
Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2021) (emphasis added). When we have demanded so
much of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, we owe them nothing less than
the full measure of our own devotion and commitment to constitutional principles.
Anything less would be desecrating the sacrifices these heroes have made for untold
numbers of people when the call of duty demanded it, and would trample upon the
graves of so many who made the ultimate sacrifice before them.
10. When the great American experiment was commenced, our Founders
ordained and established the Constitution—including all of the rights it recognized
and enshrined—“in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” U.S. Const.
Pmbl. (emphasis added). To this very day, “we continue to strive toward ‘[that] more
8
perfect union.’” Smith v. City of New Smyrna Beach, No. 6:11–cv–1110–Orl–37KRS,
2013 WL 5230659, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2013). That work is not easy, and
sometimes it requires the intervention of the judiciary to set the guardrails for the
protection of the Republic’s liberties.
11. Recognizing that times of crisis would arise, that such times might lead
governments to seek to repress precious freedoms, and that the Republic’s survival
depended upon defeating such repressive instincts, the genius of our founding
document is that it placed explicit protections into the text of the Bill of Rights. And,
importantly, “[o]ur Bill of Rights placed our survival on firmer ground—that of
freedom, not repression.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36, 79 (1961)
(Black, J., dissenting).
12. During times of national crisis, the very times when we call upon the
United States Armed Forces heroes most, “the fog of public excitement obscures the
ancient landmarks set up in our Bill of Rights.” American Communist Ass’n, C.I.O. v.
Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 453 (1950) (Black, J., dissenting). But, where the fog of public
excitement is at its apex, “the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the
constitutional rights of [the First Amendment].” De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365
(1937). Without doubt, “[t]herein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation
of constitutional government.” Id.
13. Indeed, “[t]imes of crisis take the truest measure of our commitment to
constitutional values. Constitutional values are only as strong as our willingness to
9
reaffirm them when they seem most costly to bear.” Hartness v. Bush, 919 F.2d 170,
181 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Edwards, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). Our willingness to
reaffirm our staunch commitment to our fundamental freedoms is imperative to the
very survival of the American experiment. Servicemember Plaintiffs have
demonstrated their staunch commitment, and it is time that we honor ours.
“History reveals that the initial steps in the erosion of individual rights are usually
excused on the basis of an ‘emergency’ or threat to the public. But the ultimate
strength of our constitutional guarantees lies in the unhesitating application in
times of crisis and tranquility alike.” United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667, 676 (2d Cir.
1972) (Mansfield, J., concurring) (emphasis added). For, “[i]f the provisions of the
Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they
may as well be discarded.” Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483
(1934) (Sutherland, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
14. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their commitments to the United States
Constitution and the Nation’s future comfort, security, and prosperity. This Court
should demand that the Nation return the favor. Telling Plaintiffs they must accept
or receive a shot they oppose according to their sincerely held religious beliefs, or face
court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life altering disciplinary measures,
disgraces the sacrifices these heroes have made.
15. Defendants’ vaccine mandate, ostensibly responding to a public health
crisis, has created a national emergency of much greater magnitude. The mandate
10
attacks the military from within by removing brave servicemembers from defending the
Nation by land, air, and sea, and from without by eliminating the dedicated civilian
defense contractors and employees providing everything from boots and uniforms, to
cyber security, to the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet—the F-35 Raptor—
solely because these protectors of our constitutional freedoms requested
accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs under the same Constitution.
The crisis created by Defendants’ mandates, applied to two million federal employees,
is unnecessary and completely avoidable, but nonetheless imminent and real.
16. A TRO is needed now to prevent the immediate and irreparable injury to
Plaintiffs imposed by these unlawful COVID-19 mandates.
PARTIES
17. Plaintiff NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy, is a citizen of the State of
California currently stationed at a United States Naval facility in California. NAVY
SEAL 1 has requested an exemption and accommodation of his sincerely held
religious objections to the Secretary’s mandate that all United States Armed Forces
personnel accept and receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of
remaining in their sworn posts. NAVY SEAL 1’s request for a religious exemption
and accommodation was denied, and he was immediately removed from his position
in the United States Navy. Special Operations Chief NAVY SEAL 1 enlisted in the
Navy in 2009 and wanted to serve his country to the best of his ability. NAVY SEAL 1
sought to and became a Navy SEAL. He received training from 2009 starting and
finishing BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) and SQT (SEAL
11
Qualification Training) with class 278. He deployed to Afghanistan from December
2011 to September 2012, and received a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation
Medal with a combat “V” (valor) for his actions during deployment, along with a
combat action ribbon. NAVY SEAL 1’s second tour was to the Philippines in support
of Operation Enduring Freedom, working under Joint Special Operations Task Force
(JSOTF), and receiving an Army Commendation medal. For his third tour, which was
outside of his usual deployment cycle and thus 100% voluntary, NAVY SEAL 1
volunteered to augment SEAL Team Seven during the height of the Mosul, Iraq
clearance from February to April 2017. During NAVY SEAL 1’s fourth tour, in Iraq
from August 2017 to March 2018, NAVY SEAL 1 was the acting assault lead, putting
him in charge of a platoon level force to execute the tactical direction of the platoon
chief, and he earned a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and a Navy and
Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a “C” (Combat). His most recent tour was
to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from March to September 2020. For his leadership
setting up, organizing, and executing a large joint close air support (CAS) and combat
search and rescue (CSAR) exercise, NAVY SEAL 1 received a Navy and Marine
Corps Commendation Medal. This robust exercise included units from 5 different
countries and over 15 assets. NAVY SEAL 1 also received awards for his time spent
at training commands. His first tour was at TRADET-1 as the SOUC (Special
Operations Urban Combat) Lead Petty Officer from December 2014 to June 2016. He
received a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Award for his efforts there. His
second training command tour was as the Lead Chief Petty Officer of the Navy’s only
12
Joint Close Air Support school. For his efforts in synchronizing joint assets and
providing mission critical qualification training for creating Joint Terminal Attack
Controllers (JTAC) he received a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Award.
18. Plaintiff NAVY SEAL 2, United States Navy, is a citizen of the State of
Texas and is stationed in the State of Florida. NAVY SEAL 2 has served his country
honorably and sacrificially for 19 years. NAVY SEAL 2 submitted a request for a
religious accommodation and exemption from the United States Navy. NAVY SEAL
2’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation detailed NAVY SEAL 2’s
religious beliefs and practices that compel him to abstain receiving any of the currently
available COVID-19 vaccines. NAVY SEAL 2’s request for a religious
accommodation was supported by a letter from a religious leader, which demonstrated
the sincerity of NAVY SEAL 2’s personal beliefs. NAVY SEAL 2‘s commander noted
that NAVY SEAL 2’s religious beliefs were sincere and strongly held, but
recommended that his request be disapproved, citing readiness, despite NAVY SEAL
2’s currently working in a non-deployable staff position. NAVY SEAL 2’s request for
an accommodation has been forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel who is
responsible for making the final determination. NAVY SEAL 2 faces potential court
martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-altering disciplinary measures for
merely requesting an accommodation for his sincerely held religious beliefs.
19. Plaintiff NAVY EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL OFFICER
(“NAVY EOD OFFICER”), United States Navy, is a citizen of the State of Florida
currently stationed at a United States Naval facility in the State of Hawaii. NAVY
13
EOD OFFICER has requested an exemption and accommodation of his sincerely held
religious objections to the Secretary’s mandate that all United States Armed Forces
personnel accept and receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of
remaining in their sworn posts. After NAVY EOD OFFICER’s request for a religious
exemption and accommodation, he was immediately placed in a “Not Physically
Qualified” (“NPQ”) status. If his religious exemption and accommodation request is
not granted, he will not be allowed to deploy in January, thus removing him from his
position at that time. NAVY EOD OFFICER has admirably and honorably served in
the United States Navy for over 19 years, initially becoming an enlisted Navy salvage
diver, following which he became an officer specializing in Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD). NAVY EOD OFFICER submitted a request for a religious
accommodation and exemption from the United States Navy. NAVY EOD
OFFICER articulated to his command that he has and exercises sincerely held
religious beliefs that compel him to abstain from receiving any of the currently
available COVID-19 vaccines. NAVY EOD OFFICER’s request for a religious
exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he faces potential court
merely requesting an accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
20. NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER is a 17-year Active Duty
Senior Chief Petty Officer stationed with the Marines. His career is marked with
service primarily within Special Operations Units, with eight (8) deployments, high
performance marks, and nine (9) personal awards. He holds a bachelors from George
14
Washington University in Clinical Health Sciences, and four (4) years of military
medical, CBRN and advanced medical training with a focus on operational medicine
in the deployed setting. NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER obtained his Sub-
Investigator Certification in 2017 from the FDA, so he could conduct informed
consent of EUA Freeze Dried Plasma (FDP) product, track its use and report back up
the chain of command to the FDA. As part of this informed consent, NAVY SENIOR
CHIEF PETTY OFFICER was required to conduct an hour long brief to all eligible
personnel of the risks, benefits and right to refusal of the EUA product. The program
placed heavy emphasis on the impropriety of coercive tactics to obtain “consent.”
Impeccable documentation was required, all personnel had to be afforded consent, all
consents had to be legible, contain addresses, contain witnessed signatures, with
formatting and dates matching. Audits were regularly conducted so any improper
documentation that failed to meet this stringent standard was returned and required to
be immediately resubmitted. In contrast, NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY
OFFICER’s experience with COVID-19 vaccine has been completely the opposite,
having observed coercion, public shaming, improper documentation, vaccine stacking
and an overall cavalier attitude towards new technology that does not have any long
term data. In Summer 2021, NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER was infected
with SARS-CoV-2 and recovered within two weeks, and now has serological evidence
of natural immunity that many experts believe to be consistent with or even superior
to the COVID-19 vaccine, and which is recognized by Navy regulation as a basis for
exemption from immunization. NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER has
15
submitted a religious exemption request to the COVID-19 vaccine, on the basis of the
leading of the Holy Spirit, and his Christian religious beliefs, including beliefs that the
body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the COVID-19 vaccine’s close connection
to abortion.
21. Plaintiff NAVY CHAPLAIN is a Chaplain in the United States Navy,
with over 18 years’ honorable service. NAVY CHAPLAIN has personally observed
the effect the mandatory COVID vaccination orders have had on mental health and
readiness of multiple Sailors, in the course of his recent deployment with a Carrier
Strike Group.
22. Based on his own sincerely-held Christian religious beliefs, NAVY
CHAPLAIN has submitted a religious exemption request for an accommodation from
the COVID shot mandates. NAVY CHAPLAIN believes accepting any of the
approved COVID vaccines would be an act of irreverence toward God and would be
an attempt to alter the embodied image of God within individuals, and therefore a sin
contrary to historic Judeo-Christian tradition and his Christian faith.
23. NAVY CHAPLAIN’s commander has provided a negative
recommendation for NAVY CHAPLAIN’s religious accommodation request. If his
request is not approved, NAVY CHAPLAIN fears being forced to choose between his
career of service to fellow Sailors, which he loves, and his faith in God and God’s
commands.
24. Plaintiff, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1, United States Marine Corps, is
a citizen of the State of Texas currently stationed at a United States military facility in
16
the State of Arizona. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1 has requested an exemption and
accommodation for his sincerely held religious objections to the Secretary’s mandate
that all United States Military personnel accept and receive one of the COVID-19
vaccines as a condition of remaining in their sworn posts. LIEUTENANT COLONEL
1’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation is processing and
adjudication of his request is pending. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1 is currently an
officer and a pilot in the Marine Corps. He has more than 18 years’ exemplary service
in the Marine Corps and wishes to continue serving his country for many more.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1’s duties include service as a senior officer and pilot with
his unit. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1 has served the United States on five combat
tours and deployments, including one combat deployment in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and two combat deployments in Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF – Afghanistan). LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1 has also served as a TopGun
graduate, F/A-18 pilot and instructor, Forward Air Controller (ground-based position
calling in air strikes in support of Marine infantry), and in many other billets. Close
Air Support and Forward Air Control involves responsibility for dropping ordnance
(bombs), firing rockets, and aerial gunnery on enemy targets in close proximity to
Marine infantry. An error in judgment or calculation can result in the deaths of
Americans and allies in who are in close proximity to the enemy. LIEUTENANT
COLONEL 1’s skill at both has saved countless American lives and has destroyed
America’s enemies. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1, United States Marine Corps,
submitted a request for a religious accommodation and exemption from the United
17
States Marine Corps. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1 articulated to his command that
he has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to abstain from
receiving any of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines. LIEUTENANT
COLONEL 1 met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request for a religious
exemption and accommodation and who found that LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1’s
request was made from a position of “absolute sincerity.” LIEUTENANT
COLONEL 1’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation has not been
approved, and he faces potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-
altering disciplinary measures for merely requesting an accommodation for his
sincerely held religious beliefs.
25. Plaintiff LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2 is a FY 22 Command Selected
Officer and native of Queens, NY. She enlisted in the Marine Corps in June of 1997
and served as an Administrative Clerk after completing the Unit Diary Clerks Course
in the top ten percent of the class. She served in the reserves and volunteered for active
duty following the attacks on September 11th. In 2003, LIEUTENANT COLONEL
2 wanted to be a role model for other women and completed Officer Candidate School
where she received her commission as a Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps. As
a Company Grade Officer, she served in several leadership roles including duties as a
Platoon Commander in garrison and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She served as
a Series Commander at Marine Corps Recruit Training, Parris Island and staff jobs at
several O5 level commands. She also deployed as a staff officer in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). As a Field Grade Officer, she was selected and
18
served as a Department of Defense Fellow and helped conduct research to integrate
women into ground combat arms jobs. Later, she was selected for Command and Staff
College where she earned her Master’s Degree through the Advanced Studies Program
As a field grade officer, she held billets as a Company Commander, Battalion
Executive Officer, and Operations Officer She also served as her unit’s Diversity and
Inclusion Officer. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2 is currently pending a second
modification to her permanent change of station orders to NAVCENT, Bahrain
because she submitted a religious accommodation package although she was
administratively and medically cleared to execute her orders. LIEUTENANT
COLONEL 2 has had an exemplary career. However, like many others, her faith
journey has several blemishes that she does not typically discuss unless she is moved
by the Holy Spirit to share personal aspects of her life story to help someone in
need. One of the concerns that contributes to her decision not to receive the COVID
19 shot is because of her strong opposition to abortion and how God forgave and
healed her from her own abortion. Specifically, in 1995, LIEUTENANT COLONEL
2 became pregnant after being raped. The anger and humiliation of the sexual assault
led her to have an abortion which made her even more ashamed. In fact, after her
abortion, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2 felt like a murderer, and punished herself
because she felt unworthy. This behavior only stopped after her husband caught her
punishing herself, and helped her realize that God had truly forgiven her for the
abortion. The COVID shot mandate, given the use of aborted fetal cell lines in testing
and development, places LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2 in the position of reliving her
19
rape and subsequent abortion, by being forcibly injected with a product tested on or
made with aborted fetal cells, or being dismissed from the service she loves.
26. Plaintiff MAJOR, United States Marine Corps (“USMC MAJOR”) is
stationed in North Carolina. He is a patriotic American who believes that Jesus Christ
is the virgin-born, incarnate Deity: the King over all kings and the LORD of all lords,
Whose shed blood is the sole hope for human redemption from sin and eternal
judgment, Whose death and resurrection testify to His preeminence over all creation,
and at Whose name alone every knee shall bow. Desiring to serve his country, and
follow God’s leading for his life, USMC MAJOR took the oath of conditional
enlistment in 2004 and was commissioned a second lieutenant upon completion of the
Officer Candidate Course in August 2005. After graduating from The Basic School,
he attended the Military Police Officer Basic Course, and spent his first tour of duty in
Okinawa, Japan, where he served as Officer in Charge (OIC) for two districts,
including an Air Station, off-base jurisdiction areas, and three military camps. He also
performed duties as the Antiterrorism and Force Protection officer for two
multinational exercises in Korea. USMC MAJOR then deployed to Iraq, where as a
platoon commander and convoy commander he led Marines across Al Anbar and
Diyala Provinces. Thereafter, as a Provost Marshal’s Office Operations Officer, he
directed law enforcement operations at the Marine Corps’ largest training base for
several years; went to Headquarters United States Marine Corps and worked as a staff
officer in the Pentagon for several more. USMC MAJOR received additional
specialized training and deployed a second time to Iraq, advising and assisting Iraqi
20
Security Forces in counterpropaganda efforts to defeat ISIS terrorists. Subsequently,
he commanded Headquarters Company in a Law Enforcement Battalion; served as
Force Protection Officer for a Marine Logistics Group (Forward) in Norway; and
deployed to Afghanistan as an advisor to several military, police, and governmental
organizations. USMC MAJORhas submitted a religious exemption request to the
COVID shot mandates. He desires to continue serving in the Marine Corps, consistent
with his deep personal faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and consistent with his
conscience and the personal leading of Jesus Christ regarding what he admits into his
body (which is the temple of the Holy Spirit). These require him to reject any
involvement with the destruction of innocent human life as exemplified by the use of
human fetal cell lines derived from abortions.
27. Plaintiff SECOND LIEUTENANT, United States Marine Corps, is a
citizen of the State of Alabama who graduated from the United States Naval Academy
(USNA) in 2021 and is now currently at The Basic School (TBS). Prior to the Naval
Academy, he attended Marion Military Institute (MMI) for two years. His six years of
military college were deliberate, as he has spared no expense in preparing himself to
serve as the caliber of leader that United States Marines deserve. He has maintained a
flawless conduct record throughout his time in college and in service, as he believes
setting such an example is paramount. He has sought out every opportunity for
leadership positions requiring ironclad integrity and a dedication to the Profession of
Arms, including the MMI Cadet Honor Board and USNA Brigade of Midshipman
Honor Investigation System. His professional education and mentorship has focused
21
extensively on the nuances of military law, good order and discipline, the concept of
“immediate obedience to orders,” and the invaluable obligation that a commissioned
officer holds to honor his or her Oath of Office. He is well known by his peers to be
exceptionally disciplined in his conduct and dedicated to his Oath of Office, even in
facing the potential loss of his livelihood and lifelong dream of serving and leading
Marines. SECOND LIEUTENANT submitted a request for a religious
accommodation from the COVID shot mandate, on multiple grounds, including his
sincerely-held religious belief “that, first and foremost, a Christian's body is the Temple
of the Holy Spirit and should be protected from deliberate or reckless injury or
violation,” and second, that “deceit pursuant to personnel compliance and/or
financial gain, is morally objectionable before God.” Upon submitting his religious
exemption request, he was immediately removed from his training company, and
placed in Mike Company, a non-training company reserved for 2nd Lieutenants who
are either injured and unable to complete training, or are pending punitive legal action,
while his religious accommodation request is routed up his Chain of Command for a
final decision from the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps. SECOND
LIEUTENANT should have been kept in his training company while his request was
pending, as he has not violated any DoD or Marine Corps orders in doing so, and is
administratively exempt from all pertinent orders for the duration of time awaiting a
final decision. His placement in Mike Company and removal from active training does
not protect the force from COVID, as SECOND LIEUTENANT is required to
provide administrative and labor assistance to the command, in support of his
22
colleagues in the field and elsewhere. He is required to physically interact with his
peers in all current Basic Officer Course classes in the execution of his support role
duties. In other words, he remains active around base, working to help his former
colleagues graduate from training, while his own training has been placed on hold
indefinitely despite no legal or administrative misconduct. This is punitive and an
improper response to a religious exemption request. SECOND LIEUTENANT
deeply desires to continue training for service to the Nation in the United States
Marine Corps, without the profound conflict between his religious beliefs and the
COVID shot directives, and without discrimination.
28. Plaintiff CAPTAIN, United States Marine Corps, is a citizen of the State
of South Carolina and a patriotic American whose faith is Islam. Desiring to serve
his country, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 2014, graduating from
recruit training in March 2015. After serving with a Law Enforcement Battalion and
earning his undergraduate degree, he was selected for Officer Candidate School, and
commissioned as a second lieutenant in 2016. After graduating from The Basic
School, he attended the Military Police Basic Officer Course, with his first duty
assignment at a Marine Corps Law Enforcement Battalion as a Platoon Commander.
He attended courses in Norway and commanded a Military Police Integrated
Company during a NATO Exercise. He has been deployed in several locations,
including Africa. CAPTAIN desires to continue serving in the Marine Corps,
consistent with his Islamic religious beliefs that require him to abstain from
23
participation in that which is haram – forbidden – including the destruction and
commoditization of innocent human life as exemplified by the use of human fetal
cell lines derived from abortions. CAPTAIN desires to exercise “complete reliance
on God” rather than in what he believes to be morally-tainted COVID shots.
29. Plaintiff ARMY RANGER, United States Army, ARMY RANGER,
United States Army, is a citizen of the State of Missouri currently stationed at a United
States military facility in the State of Washington. ARMY RANGER has requested
an exemption and accommodation for his sincerely held religious objections to the
Secretary’s mandate that all United States Military personnel accept and receive one
of the COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of remaining in their sworn posts. ARMY
RANGER has submitted a request for a religious exemption and accommodation, but
he has been told by a superior the superior is concerned that the request will “put a
target on him” as he is one of two men in the company who have requested a religious
exemption from getting the COVID shot. Nonetheless, this superior supports his
request for a religious exemption. ARMY RANGER entered active duty in 2015 as an
Infantryman (11B). He was selected for Ranger Assessment Selection Program
(RASP) in 2015, and graduated Ranger School in 2017, earning his Ranger Tab. He
has deployed twice in support of Operation Freedom Sentinel. He is committed to
serving the Nation and desires to continue, so long as he is not forced to violate his
own religious beliefs and what he believes God requires of him.
24
30. Plaintiff LANCE CORPORAL 1, United States Marine Corps, is a
citizen of the State of California currently stationed at a United States Marine Corps
facility in California. LANCE CORPORAL 1 has requested an exemption and
accommodation of his sincerely held religious objections to the Secretary’s mandate
that all United States Armed Forces personnel accept and receive one of the
COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of remaining in their sworn posts. LANCE
CORPORAL 1’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation was denied.
LANCE CORPORAL 1 is currently serving in the United States Marine Corps in the
1st Radio Battalion, I Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group with the I
Marine Expeditionary Force. LANCE CORPORAL 1 was raised in a Christian home
where his father always told him that he had the choice of going to college or joining
the military. Once he decided to join the military, LANCE CORPORAL 1 instantly
chose the Marines because he believed they are the best of the bunch. LANCE
CORPORAL 1 started dedicating his life to physical fitness to prepare for the difficult
journey he chose. LANCE CORPORAL 1 has discovered a talent and passion for
Electrical Maintenance, and intends to pursue it as a civilian career post-military.
LANCE CORPORAL 1 signed a 5-year contract, and he plans on serving his country
for 5 years. LANCE CORPORAL 1 submitted a religious exemption request from the
United States Marine Corps. LANCE CORPORAL 1’s request for a religious
accommodation and exemption articulated to his command that he has and exercises
sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to abstain from receiving any of the
currently available COVID-19 vaccines. LANCE CORPORAL 1’s request for a
25
religious exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he faces
potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-altering disciplinary
measures for merely requesting an accommodation of his sincerely held religious
beliefs.
31. Plaintiff LANCE CORPORAL 2 is a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, currently stationed in North Carolina. LANCE CORPORAL 2 joined the
Marine Corps in 2018 out of a desire to serve his Country. He graduated Boot Camp,
Marine Corps Combat Training, and MOS School, and became a Combat Engineer.
LANCE CORPORAL 2 has a strong faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ. He
submitted a religious exemption request to the COVID shot orders based on his sincere
Christian religious beliefs. He feels the strong conviction of God’s Holy Spirit upon
his heart that he must not get the COVID shot, and that if he were to get the COVID
shot, it would be sin as a violation of the Holy Spirit’s leading and direction, and also
that it would be sinful complicity in the murder of innocent unborn humans. He
believes that all people, born and unborn, are created in God’s image, and that life
should be respected. He believes it is disrespectful to innocent human life to be
associated with or take into his body products derived from abortion. Lance Corporal
2 has been told by several non-commissioned officers that “it is unlikely your religious
exemption request will be approved,” and that “they’re just going to deny them all.”
If these superiors are correct, he faces involuntary administrative separation at best,
and at worst, dishonorable discharge and other life-altering punishment.
26
32. Plaintiff MAJOR, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (AIR FORCE
MAJOR), is an officer in the U.S. Air Force with over 18 years of honorable active-
duty service, and holds a Master of Science degree from an accredited Christian
university. As a teenage Christian missionary to Mexico, he developed a strong
appreciation for the blessings of his home in America and the legacy of Christian
values that sets our nation apart. With this love of God and his Christian American
legacy, he answered the call on his life to serve the Nation in the Air Force. He was
sworn in as a lieutenant by his grandfather, a retired Colonel. AIR FORCE MAJOR
went on to fly many life-saving combat missions in Iraq, Africa, and Afghanistan. The
hell of war struck AIR FORCE MAJOR very deeply through the loss of friendly
forces’ lives, the suicide of fellow airmen, as well as the deaths of innocent civilians.
During one tragic mission, while defending forces surrounded by heavy enemy
gunfire, AIR FORCE MAJOR suffered a deadly loss in the gunfight. In his profound
devastation, AIR FORCE MAJOR called on Jesus’ help to carry him through the
night of continued danger to the special operations team. In subsequent years, his faith
journey out of the depths of that pain and pains from other combat missions has led
him to assist in several Christian ministries. He supervised weekly youth church
services, Christian summer camp, counseled at a Christian charity relief center, and
travelled on leave to Ethiopia to help establish a care point for an international
Children’s poverty relief center. AIR FORCE MAJOR’s life ministry now includes his
own children. Having recently learned of the use of human abortion derived fetal cell
lines in the development, production, or selection and testing of COVID vaccines, AIR
27
FORCE MAJOR’s religious convictions conflict with DoD orders that he partake of
them. AIR FORCE MAJOR follows God’s written direction from Scripture, and
knows that he must abstain from the use of vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell
lines. Per Proverbs 6:16-17, he has a strong conviction that God will judge “hands
that shed innocent blood” and he cannot align himself with such deeds. He believes
respect for innocent human life is what differentiates America from horrific
perpetrators of human rights abuses and genocide.
33. Plaintiff NATIONAL GUARDSMAN, Virginia Army National Guard,
a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, entered service with the Virginia Army
National Guard in 1987. He graduated Fort Benning Infantry school and became an
Infantryman. His unit attended and graduated Jungle Expert school and pulled guard
duty in 1988 before the Invasion of Panama. He is an expert rifleman more times than
not. He was selected as the Soldier of the Year for his company and went on to win
the board for the Battalion Soldier of the year in 1989. He was promoted to SGT in
June of 1990. NATIONAL GUARDSMAN was employed by a Textile Mill in
Virginia where he quickly rose to Production Supervisor where he served until June
2001 when NAFTA was taking a toll on the economy. He made a career change and
enlisted into the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program 2001. From May 2001-2005,
he’s served as Readiness/Training NCO and deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
where he performed Force Protection Duties along with being the Sergeant of the
Guard of Camp Delta Detainment Center. Upon returning to the United States, he
earned another MOS in Logistics. In 2007, NATIONAL GUARDSMAN was
28
promoted to Sergeant First Class. With his new unit, he served as the Senior Logistics
NCO in charge and in May of 2010, NATIONAL GUARDSMAN deployed to the
austere Shindand, Afghanistan during the 2010 Surge, and it was there that he earned
the Bronze Star (without V Device). He deployed as the Senior BN Logistics NCO
with the 1-116th IN to Doha, Qatar for a Force Protection mission. NATIONAL
GUARDSMAN served or trained in 7 countries and has over 50 awards / Impact
awards. He has served as an Infantryman Squad Leader, Platoon SGT, First SGT and
a Logistics NCO, has two additional skill identifiers of Battle Staff NCO and DoD
Contracting Specialist. He is currently Number 2 on the State of Virginia Army
National Guard. NATIONAL GUARDSMAN submitted a request for a religious
accommodation and exemption from the Virginia Army National Guard.
NATIONAL GUARDSMAN articulated to his command that he has and exercises
currently available COVID-19 vaccines. NATIONAL GUARDSMAN’s request for a
religious exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he has been told
that he could potentially face court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-
altering disciplinary measures for merely requesting an accommodation for his
sincerely held religious beliefs. NATIONAL GUARDSMAN has also been
REMOVED from his scheduled deployment because of his request for an
accommodation and exemption.
34. Plaintiff COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT, United States Coast Guard,
is a citizen of the State of Florida. She has spent 14 years in service to her country, and
29
is currently stationed along the Gulf Coast. Following in the footsteps of two
generations of her family, she felt the call to serve as a young child. COAST GUARD
LIEUTENANT had a desire to serve the people of this nation and steward its natural
resources and the Coast Guard's missions had been a perfect fit. During her time in
the Coast Guard, COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT has felt privileged to serve
alongside a diverse group of people from all around the world, including the Naval
and Coast Guard members of other nations. COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT
submitted a request for a religious accommodation and exemption from the United
States Coast Guard outlining her sincerely held religious objections to receiving one
of the COVID-19 vaccines. While breastfeeding her child born earlier this year, she is
currently under a temporary medical exemption while undergoing testing for allergies
to vaccine components. Though her immediate supervisor supports her requests,
COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT has been informed that should these waivers be
denied, she may face an other-than-honorable discharge, loss of benefits, and other
disciplinary measures if she does not accept the COVID-19 vaccine. COAST GUARD
LIEUTENANT has also been informed that even if the medical waivers are approved,
she may be determined medically unfit for service and discharged.
35. Plaintiff COLONEL, United States Army, is a citizen of the State of
Texas and has served as a health care provider in the United States Army for 22 years.
He has been deployed twice to Bosnia for six-months, and to Iraq for one year.
COLONEL has treated countless numbers of Soldier patients over his career, and his
family has sacrificed, as a military families do, for him to be able to serve Soldiers and
30
other members of the military. COLONEL hoped to retire with the United States
Army, but as a result of the COVID-19 mandate, he faces discipline for the mere
exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs. COLONEL submitted a request for a
religious accommodation and exemption from the United States Army. COLONEL
articulated to his command that he has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs
that compel him to abstain from receiving any of the currently available COVID-19
vaccines. COLONEL met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request for a
religious exemption and accommodation and found that COLONEL’s request was
sincere. COLONEL’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation has not
been approved, and he faces potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other
life-altering disciplinary measures for merely requesting an accommodation of his
36. Plaintiff TECHNICAL SERGEANT, United States Air Force, is a
citizen of the State of Oklahoma and has spent 15 years in service to her country in the
United States Air Force. She felt the call to serve after high school, after being so
emotionally affected by the events that transpired on September 11, 2001.
TECHNICAL SERGEANT wanted to become a part of something much bigger than
herself, and the Air Force offered her a wonderful opportunity. During her time in the
Air Force, TECHNICAL SERGEANT felt privileged to serve with so many selfless
and inspirational people all around the world. She spent time in Texas, Mississippi,
Illinois, Hawaii, and South Korea. She has been deployed to Kandahar Air Base,
Afghanistan, spending six months supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.
31
TECHNICAL SERGEANT submitted a request for a religious accommodation and
exemption from the United States Air Force outlining her sincerely held religious
objections to receiving one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Although she is currently under
a temporary medical exemption due to being seven months pregnant, TECHNICAL
SERGEANT has been informed that once that runs out, she will face court martial,
dishonorable discharge, and other disciplinary measures if she does not accept the
COVID-19 vaccine.
37. Plaintiff DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR (and NAVY
RESERVE CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER) is a citizen of the State of Florida and a
contractor of the United States Department of Defense (DoD). DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR is on leave of absence from his DoD Contractor
employer, where he conducted Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
quantitative and qualitative assessments and studies in all phases of ISR asset and
sensor performance and effectiveness for the DoD. These assessments are briefed to
DoD senior leadership to inform decisions on future employment, allocation, and
procurement. He holds a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented information (TS/SCI)
security clearance. As a NAVY RESERVE CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER, he
formerly enlisted in the Navy Reserve’s Non-Prior Service and Advance Pay Grade
(APG) programs in November 2003. After completing basic training in August 2004,
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR was assigned to NR SECGRU
Minneapolis from 2004 to 2010. From January to December 2008, DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR was mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi
32
Freedom as part of a Joint Task Force stationed in Balad, Iraq. Following his
mobilization, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR returned to NR NIOC
Texas-Minneapolis and was advanced to Chief Petty Officer in September 2009.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR’s military leadership assignments
include Operations Department Leading Chief Petty Officer at NR NIOC
Minneapolis, Senior Enlisted Leader and then Senior Chief Petty Officer in 2015 at
NR NIOC Georgia-Orlando, Senior Enlisted Leader at NR Office of Naval
Intelligence, and Senior Enlisted Leader NR at NIOC Georgia – Pensacola.
Following his tour at NR NIOC Georgia – Pensacola, he was commissioned as a
CWO2 in 2019. Following his commissioning, he affiliated with NR C10FNIOCGA
ORL and has been on active duty orders supporting US Special Operations Command
J24. He has submitted a request for a religious accommodation and exemption from
the United States outlining his sincerely held religious objections to receiving one of
the COVID-19 vaccines because of their connection to aborted fetal cell lines.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR’s request was supported by a
Chaplain’s recommendation and his supervisor’s recommendation. DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR has not received a response to his request for a
religious accommodation but has been informed that it is not likely to be granted.
38. Plaintiff FEDERAL CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR is a
citizen of the State of Georgia and employed by a large military defense contractor
that provides LCD screens used in United States Armed Forces aircraft. FEDERAL
CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR is a level-2 electrical engineer working
33
nearly exclusively on contracts for the United States Armed Forces. FEDERAL
CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR is an active congregant of his church with
sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to abstain from accepting or receiving
the COVID-19 vaccines. FEDERAL CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR
would like to submit a request for a religious exemption and accommodation, but has
has seen his employer’s responses to some religious exemption requests submitted by
colleagues stating a "waiver of required vaccination should be granted indefinitely,
after which time you will need to be fully vaccinated," rendering any granted
exemption potentially illusory, and subject to revocation at any time.
39. Plaintiff FEDERAL CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER is a
citizen of the State of Michigan who owns his own engineering company located in
the Midwest. FEDERAL CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER and his
company develop and support military weapons systems, including current and next
generation land vehicles for the Army and next generation Navy vessels. FEDERAL
CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER would like to request a religious
exemption and accommodation from the Executive Order mandating that all
government contractors mandate the COVID-19 vaccines, and he would like to be able
to accommodate and exempt his employees that likewise have sincerely held religious
objections to the COVID-19 vaccines. FEDERAL CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR
EMPLOYER is concerned that as a result of his desire to provide religious exemptions
and accommodations and the Executive Order mandating that all government
34
contractors and subcontractors require COVID-19 vaccines of their employees, his
government contracts (future and current) will be terminated.
40. Plaintiff FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE is a
citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a young woman of child-bearing age.
She holds sincere Christian religious beliefs about human life and marriage. She
believes that mankind was created by God, that men and women are designed for a
unique, complementary relationship within the context of marriage, and that as part
of that relationship, God has designed the female body to fulfill the Creation mandate
to “be fruitful and multiply.” FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE
believes abortion to be a great sin, and is morally opposed to the use of aborted fetal
cells in the testing or development of vaccines, including the COVID vaccines.
FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE is not married yet, but hopes
to be one day, and in that relationship to have a child or children as God blesses her.
She believes that “children are an heritage of the Lord,” and that bearing a child or
children in the context of marriage fulfils a Divine mandate. FEDERAL NUCLEAR
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE is aware that no long-term studies have been
performed on any of the COVID shots regarding their impact on female fertility, and
given her religious beliefs about marriage and childbearing, cannot receive any of
the COVID shots. FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE fears
being placed in the position of having to choose between her job and her faith.
35
41. Plaintiff DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECH
is a citizen of the State of Texas and is an R&D Research Technician/Operations
Technician for Material Physics Applications Quantum (MPA-Q) which is his group
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. He works with Radar
Frequencies, Tesla Magnets, Class 3/4 Laser Operations and Experiments, as well
as many other aspects of the DOE’s nuclear programs. He has been employed at his
current position for 12 years and is a faithful and exemplary employee.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECH requested a religious
exemption and accommodation from Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate on
federal civilian contractors, and his request was denied. DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECH was given until October 15 to accept one
of the vaccines or face termination.
42. Defendant JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of
the United States, is the head of the federal government and Commander in Chief of
the United States Armed Forces, and is responsible for enacting, implementing, and
enforcing the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for members of the United States
Armed Forces and civilian federal employees and contractors. Specifically, President
Biden issued two Executive Orders on September 9, 2021, mandating that all civilian
federal employees and contractors receive a COVID-19 vaccine. President Biden is
sued in his official capacity.
36
43. Defendant LLOYD AUSTIN, in his official capacity as the Secretary of
the United States Department of Defense (DoD), is responsible for enacting,
implementing, and enforcing the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for members of
the United States Armed Forces under DoD authority. Specifically, Secretary Austin
issued the August 24 Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership and other officials
mandating that all military servicemembers under Department of Defense authority
receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Secretary Austin is sued in his official capacity.
44. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for enacting, implementing, and
enforcing the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for members of the United States
Coast Guard and other civilian federal employees and contractors. Secretary Austin
issued a directive, in accordance with President Biden’s September 6 Executive
Orders, mandating that all Department of Homeland Security employees, including
United States Coast Guard servicemembers, receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Secretary
Mayorkas is sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
45. This action arises under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. This action also arises under federal statutory law, namely the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4, and under the Emergency
Use Authorization provisions of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.
§ 360bbb-3.
37
46. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
47. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
this district.
48. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, implemented through Rule 57, Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
49. This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A. THE FEDERAL COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE.
50. On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14043,
Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees, requiring all
federal employees to receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of
employment. (A true and correct copy of Executive Order 14043 is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein.)
51. In Executive Order 14043, President Biden stated: “I have determined
that to promote the health and safety of the Federal workforce and the efficiency of
the civil service, it is necessary to require COVID-19 vaccination for all Federal
employees . . . .” (Ex. A at 2.)
38
52. Consistent with that determination, Executive Order 14043 states: “Each
agency shall implement, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a program to
require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees . . . .” (Ex. A at 2.)
53. Also on September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order
14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, requiring
that all federal contractors and subcontractors “comply with all guidance for
contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal
Workforce Task Force.” (A true and correct copy of Executive Order 14042 is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT B and incorporated herein.) Pursuant to Executive Order 14042,
the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued its Guidance for Federal Contractors and
Subcontractors on September 24, 2021, requiring that all employees of federal
contractors and subcontractors receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines as a condition
of performing any contract for work for the Federal Government. (A true and correct
copy of the Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein.)
54. On August 24, 2021, Secretary Austin issued a Memorandum for Senior
Pentagon Leadership, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, and Defense
Agency and DoD Field Activity Directors, Subject: Mandatory Coronavirus Disease
2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members, mandating that all
military servicemembers under DoD authority receive the COVID-19 vaccine. (A true
and correct copy of the Secretary’s August 24 Memorandum is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT D and incorporated herein.)
39
55. In his Memorandum, Secretary Austin stated: “After careful consultation
with medical experts and military leadership, and with the support of the President, I
have determined that mandatory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) is necessary to protect the Force and defend the American people.”
(Exhibit D at 1.)
56. Secretary Austin further stated: “I therefore direct 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.” (Exhibit D at
1.)
57. Though not even possible right now (see infra), the Secretary stated that
mandatory vaccination “will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure
from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in accordance with FDA-approved
labeling and guidance.” (Ex. D at 1.)
B. PLAINTIFFS’ SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
58. Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Scripture, that
preclude them from complying with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate because
of the connections between the various COVID-19 vaccines and the cell lines of
aborted fetuses, whether in the vaccines’ origination, production, development,
testing, or other inputs. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in
Scripture, that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that they cannot place
anything into their Temples without confirmation and conviction from the Holy Spirit.
40
59. A fundamental component of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs is
that all life is sacred, from the moment of conception to natural death, and that
abortion is the murder of an innocent life and a grave sin against God.
60. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs are rooted in Scripture’s
teachings that “[a]ll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy
3:16 (KJV).
61. Because of that sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they
must conform their lives, including their decisions relating to medical care, to the
commands and teaching of Scripture.
62. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that God forms children in
the womb and knows them prior to birth, and that because of this, life is sacred from
the moment of conception to natural death. See Psalm 139:13–14 (ESV) (“For you
formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you,
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”); Psalm 139:16 (ESV) (“Your eyes saw my
unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were
formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”); Isaiah 44:2 (ESV) (“Thus says
the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb . . . .”); Isaiah 44:24 (ESV)
(“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the
Lord, who made all things . . . .’”); Isaiah 49:1b (ESV) (“The LORD called me from the
womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.”); Isaiah 49:5 (ESV) (“And
now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant . . . .”);
41
Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV) (“‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you
were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’”).
63. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs that every child’s life is
sacred because each is made in the image of God. See Genesis 1:26–27 (ESV) (“Then
God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . So God created man
in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them.’” (footnote omitted)).
64. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that because life is sacred
from the moment of conception, the killing of that innocent life is the murder of an
innocent human in violation of Scripture. See, e.g., Exodus 20:13 (ESV) (“‘You shall
not murder.’”); Exodus 21:22–23 (ESV) (imposing death penalty for killing of an
unborn child); Exodus 23:7 (ESV) (“‘[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous . . . .’”);
Genesis 9:6 (ESV) (“‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.’”); Deuteronomy 27:25 (ESV) (“Cursed be anyone
who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
Proverbs 6:16–17 (ESV) (“There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an
abomination to him: . . . hands that shed innocent blood . . . .”).
65. The Hebrew word for “abomination” in the text above is ‫תֹו ֵע ֵבה‬
(to`eba). The verbal form is “abhor,” “loath,” “detest,” and “exclude.” Twelve times
the Book of Proverbs uses ‫ תֹו ֵע ֵבה‬in reference to an “abomination to the LORD.”
(‫ יהוה‬or Yahweh). The word is also used in conjunction with the Ammonites and the
Ashtoreth, the Sidonians, Chemosth, and Moab. Some of these nations sacrificed their
42
children to Baal. Indeed, Jeremiah 19:4–9, refers to the shedding of innocent blood by
sacrificing children as the reason for judgement against Judah. Abortion is the modern-
day sacrifice of children made in the image of God. Plaintiffs do not want to be part
of such an “abomination.” They do not want indirectly or directly to be in any way
associated with abortion. To do so is abhorrent, loathsome, detestable, abominable to
God. In short, to require these employees to inject a substance into their bodies that
has any association (no matter how near or remote to abortion) is a sin against their
Creator, their Lord, and their Savior.
66. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs that it would be better
to tie millstones around their necks and be drowned in the sea than to bring harm to
an innocent child. See Matthew 18:6; Luke 17:2 (ESV).
67. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs that their bodies are
temples of the Holy Spirit, and that to inject medical products that have any
connection whatsoever to aborted fetal cell lines would be defiling the temple of the
Holy Spirit. (See 1 Corinthians 6:15–20 (ESV) (“Do you not know that your bodies are
members of Christ? . . . Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were
bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”).
68. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs compel them to not condone, support, justify,
or benefit (directly or indirectly) from the taking of innocent human life via abortion,
and that to do so is sinning against God.
43
69. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs preclude them from accepting
any one of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines derived from, produced
or manufactured by, tested on, developed with, or otherwise connected to aborted fetal
cell lines.
70. As reported by the North Dakota Department of Health, in its handout
literature for those considering one of the COVID-19 vaccines, “[t]he non-replicating
viral vector vaccine produced by Johnson & Johnson did require the use of fetal cell
cultures, specifically PER.C6, in order to produce and manufacture the vaccine.”
See North Dakota Health, COVID-19 Vaccines & Fetal Cell Lines (Apr. 20, 2021),
https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20P
age/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf.
71. The Louisiana Department of Health likewise confirms that the Johnson
& Johnson COVID-19 vaccine used the PER.C6 fetal cell line, which “is a retinal cell
line that was isolated from a terminated fetus in 1985.” La. Dep’t of Public Health,
You Have Questions, We Have Answers: COVID-19 Vaccine FAQ (Dec. 21, 2020),
https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-PHCH/Center-PH/immunizations/
You_Have_Qs_COVID-19_Vaccine_FAQ.pdf (emphasis added).
72. Scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science
have likewise published research showing that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine used
aborted fetal cell lines in the development and production phases of the vaccine.
44
Meredith Wadman, Vaccines that use human fetal cells draw fire, Science (June 12, 2020),
available at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1170.full.
73. The same is true of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines.
The Louisiana Department of Health’s publications again confirm that aborted fetal
cells lines were used in the “proof of concept” phase of the development of their
mRNA vaccines. See La. Dep’t of Public Health, supra.
74. The North Dakota Department of Health likewise confirms: “Early in
the development of mRNA vaccine technology, fetal cells were used for ‘proof of
concept’ (to demonstrate how a cell could take up mRNA and produce the SARS-
CoV-2 spike protein) or to characterize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.” N.D.
Health, supra (emphasis added).
75. The Chief Scientific Officer and Senior Director of Worldwide Research
for Pfizer have also been reported to demonstrate that its COVID-19 vaccine is derived
from aborted fetal cells and have made statements that they wanted to keep that
information from the public. See PFIZER LEAKS: Whistleblower Goes On Record, Reveals
Internal Emails from Chief Scientific Officer & Senior Director of Worldwide Research
Discussing COVID Vaccine ... ‘We Want to Avoid Having the Information on the Fetal Cells
Floating Out There’, ProjectVeritas (Oct. 6, 2021),
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pfizer-leaks-whistleblower-goes-on-record-
reveals-internal-emails-from-chief/.
45
76. Specifically, Vanessa Gelman, Pfizer Senior Director of Worldwide
Research: “From the perspective of corporate affairs, we want to avoid having the
information on fetal cells floating out there…The risk of communicating this right now
outweighs any potential benefit we could see, particularly with general members of the
public who may take this information and use it in ways we may not want out there.
We have not received any questions from policy makers or media on this issue in the
last few weeks, so we want to avoid raising this if possible.” Id.
77. And, Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer’s Chief Scientific Officer is reported as
saying that he wanted to keep the information secret because of the objections that
pro-life individuals, such as Plaintiffs in this action, would have: “HEK293T cells,
used for the IVE assay, are ultimately derived from an aborted fetus. On the other
hand, the Vatican doctrinal committee has confirmed that they consider it acceptable
for Pro-Life believers to be immunized. Pfizer’s official statement couches the answer
well and is what should be provided in response to an outside inquiry.” Id.
78. Because all three of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines are
developed and produced from, tested with, researched on, or otherwise connected with
the aborted fetal cell lines HEK-293 and PER.C6, Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious
beliefs compel them to abstain from obtaining or injecting any of these products into
their body, regardless of the perceived benefit or rationale.
79. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that their bodies are temples
of the Holy Spirit, and that to inject medical products that have any connection
whatsoever to aborted fetal cell lines would be defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit.
46
80. Plaintiffs sincerely religious beliefs that their bodies are temples of the
Holy Spirit and that they are to glorify God with their bodies lays the foundation for
everything they do, consume, or inject into their bodies. From this foundation they
make studied and reasonable decisions about what is good and what is not good or
may not be good for their bodies. To knowingly abuse their bodies by engaging in a
dishonorable act, or consuming or injecting a substance that will or may produce
adverse consequences, is a sin against God. Based on this foundation, Plaintiffs would
consume pure water over a similarly clear liquid they know or reasonably conclude is
harmful to the body. This belief and other sincerely held religious beliefs are
foundational to all their decisions and actions and are not limited to aborted fetal cell
lines.
81. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that the Holy Spirit—
through prayer and the revelation of Scripture—guide them in all decisions they make
in life.
82. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that Jesus Christ came to
this earth, died on the cross for their sins, was resurrected three days later, and that
when He ascended to Heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell His believers and to
guide them in all aspects of their lives. See John 16:7 (ESV) (“Nevertheless, I tell you
the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper
will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.”); John 14:26 (ESV) (“But the
Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all
things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”).
47
83. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that the Holy Spirit was
given to them by God to reprove them of righteousness and sin and to guide them into
all truth. See John 16:8–13 (ESV) (“And when he comes, he will convict the world
concerning sin and righteousness and judgment . . . . When the Spirit of truth comes,
he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but
whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to
come.”).
84. Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs that they will receive
answers to their questions through prayer and supplication, including for decisions
governing their medical health. See James 1:5 (ESV) (“If any of you lacks wisdom, let
him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”);
Mark 11:24 (ESV) (“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you
have received it, and it will be yours.”); Philippians 4:6–7 (ESV) (“[D]o not be anxious
about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let
your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all
understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”); 1 John 4:14–
15 (ESV) (“And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the
Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in
him, and he in God.”).
85. Through much prayer and reflection, Plaintiffs have sought wisdom,
understanding, and guidance on the proper decisions to make concerning these
COVID-19 vaccines, and Plaintiffs have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that
48
accepting any of the three currently available vaccines is against the teachings of
Scripture and would be a sin.
86. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that compel them to follow
the teachings of the Holy Spirit, who has not given them peace, comfort, or
admonition to accept any of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines.
87. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that they are being guided
and instructed by the Holy Spirit not to accept any of the three currently available
COVID-19 vaccines and that it would be a sin against God to do so.
88. Plaintiff CAPTAIN is of the Islamic faith whose sincerely held religious
beliefs that require him to abstain from participation in that which is haram –
forbidden – including the destruction and commoditization of innocent human life
as exemplified by the use of human fetal cell lines derived from abortions.
CAPTAIN desires to exercise “complete reliance on God” rather than in what he
believes to be morally-tainted COVID shots
C. PLAINTIFFS’ WILLINGNESS TO COMPLY WITH SAFE AND

TESTED ALTERNATIVES TO UNIVERSAL VACCINATION AS
ACCOMMODATION OF THEIR SINCERELY HELD
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
89. Plaintiffs have offered, and are ready, willing, and able to comply with
all reasonable health and safety requirements to facilitate their religious exemption and
accommodation from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.
90. Plaintiffs have all informed their respective commanding officers and
civilian supervisors that they are willing to comply with reasonable conditions that
49
were sufficient for nearly two years, permitting them to fulfill their sworn duties and
faithful service to their employers and a grateful nation, and which reasonable
conditions continued from the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the
first COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020, until August 24, 2021 for military
servicemembers and September 9 for federal civilian employees and contractors.
Nothing has changed except for the Mandate, and thus the past proves a good example
of present and future reasonable accommodations.
91. The accommodations which have been ongoing for nearly two years are
certainly reasonable under the accumulating scientific evidence. Indeed,
A preliminary study has shown that in the case of a breakthrough

infection, the Delta variant is able to grow in the noses of vaccinated
people to the same degree as if they were not vaccinated at all. The
virus that grows is just as infectious as that in unvaccinated people,
meaning vaccinated people can transmit the virus and infect others.
Sanjay Mishra, Evidence mounts that people with breakthrough infections can spread Delta
easily, National Geographic (Aug. 20, 2021),
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/evidence-mounts-that-people-
with-breakthrough-infections-can-spread-delta-easily (emphasis added); see also
Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR (July
30, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html
(noting “the Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in
vaccinated and unvaccinated people” (emphasis added).)
50
92. Other reasonable protocols beyond the currently-available COVID
vaccines remain sufficient to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among military
servicemembers, federal employees, and federal contractors, and constitute a
reasonable alternative to mandatory, universal vaccination as an accommodation of
93. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
recently issued a TRO against a medical school for the school’s failure to grant
religious exemptions when other reasonable accommodations were available and
mandatory vaccination was not the least restrictive means of achieving the school’s
interest in protecting the school’s student body. See Magliulo v. Edward Via College of
Osteopathic Medicine, No. 3:21-CV-2304, 2021 WL 36799227 (W.D. La. Aug. 17,
2021).
94. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
issued a TRO against a university for its failure to allow students with religious
objections to vaccination to participate in athletics and other extracurricular activities
when other reasonable alternatives were available as a reasonable accommodation for
their religious beliefs. See Dahl v. Bd. of Trustees of W. Mich. Univ., No. 1:21-cv-757, 2021
WL 3891620, *2 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2021). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed that preliminary injunction in its order refusing to stay the preliminary
injunction. See Dahl v. Bd. of Trustees of W. Mich. Univ., No. 21-2945, 2021 WL 4618519
(6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2021).
51
95. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have both entered injunctions against
enforcement of New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on healthcare workers that
expressly excluded any religious exemption. On October 12, 2021, the Northern
District of New York entered a preliminary injunction enjoining state officials from
enforcing the mandate. See Dr. A. v. Hochul, No. 1:21-CV-1009, 2021 WL 4734404
(N.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2021). The court had previously entered a TRO to the same effect.
See 2021 WL 4189533 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2021). On September 30, in between the
Northern District’s TRO and preliminary injunction, the Second Circuit gave its
imprimatur to the Dr. A. TRO in We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, No. 21-2179, dkt.
65 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2021). In We The Patriots, the Second Circuit issued an injunction
pending appeal against New York’s mandate, enjoining state officials from enforcing
it “in a manner that would violate the terms of the temporary restraining order issued
in Dr. A v. Hochul.”
96. The United States Military Health System allows three different types of
permanent medical exemptions from compulsory immunizations: (1) “Determination
by a medical provider that further vaccination will seriously endanger patient's
health;” (2) “Medical, Reactive exemption: Previously severe reaction after specific
vaccine;” and (3) “Medical, Immune exemption: Evidence of existing immunity (e.g.,
by serologic antibody test, documentation of previous infection or natural infection
presumed).” See Military Health System, Immunization Exemption Guidance,
Health.mil, https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-
52
Readiness/Immunization-Healthcare/Clinical-Consultation-Services/Exemption-
Guidance (last visited October 14, 2021).
97. Several Plaintiffs and countless other class members were previously
infected with COVID-19, have serologic test results demonstrating natural antibodies
and immunity to COVID-19, and otherwise qualify for the exemptions ostensibly
available for servicemembers. Plaintiffs, however, have been denied the ability to even
requests the officially available exemptions.
D. PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR AN ACCOMMODATION FROM

THE MANDATORY COVID-19 VACCINE POLICY.
98. On September 7, 2021, NAVY SEAL 1 submitted to the United States
Navy a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs. NAVY SEAL 1 articulated to his
command that he has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to
abstain from receiving any of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines. NAVY
SEAL 1 met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request for a religious
exemption and accommodation and found that NAVY SEAL 1’s request was sincere.
NAVY SEAL 1’s Chaplain forwarded NAVY SEAL 1’s request to the command.
After review, NAVY SEAL 1’s request for a religious exemption and accommodation
was denied, and he was preemptively removed from his position as Platoon Chief.
NAVY SEAL 1 faces potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-
altering disciplinary measures for exercising and seeking accommodation of his
sincerely held religious beliefs against COVID-19 vaccination.
53
99. On September 14, 2021, NAVY SEAL 2 submitted to the United States
Navy a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs. NAVY SEAL 2’s request for a
religious exemption and accommodation detailed NAVY SEAL 2’s religious beliefs
and practices that compel him to abstain from receiving any of the currently available
COVID-19 vaccines. NAVY SEAL 2’s request for a religious accommodation was
supported by a letter from a religious leader, which demonstrated the sincerity of
NAVY SEAL 2’s personal beliefs. NAVY SEAL 2’s commander noted that NAVY
SEAL 2’s religious beliefs were sincere and strongly held, but recommended that his
request be disapproved. NAVY SEAL 2’s request for an accommodation has been
forwarded to the officers responsible for making the final determination, but he has
been informed that his request will not be approved because of his direct commander’s
recommendation of denial. NAVY SEAL 2 faces potential court martial, dishonorable
discharge, and other life-altering disciplinary measures for exercising and seeking
accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs against COVID-19 vaccination
100. On September 15, 2021, NAVY EOD OFFICER submitted to the United
States Navy a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine
Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs. NAVY EOD OFFICER
vaccines. NAVY EOD OFFICER’s request for a religious exemption and
accommodation has not been approved, and he faces potential court martial,
54
dishonorable discharge, and other life-altering disciplinary measures for exercising and
seeking accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs against COVID-19
vaccination.
101. On September 16, 2021, LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1, United States
Marine Corps, submitted to the United States Marine Corps a request for religious
exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate as an accommodation of
his sincerely held beliefs. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1 articulated to his command
that he has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to abstain
from receiving any of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines. LIEUTENANT
COLONEL 1 met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request for a religious
exemption and accommodation and found that LIEUTENANT COLONEL’s request
was made from a position of “absolute sincerity.” LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1’s
request for a religious exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he
faces potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-altering
disciplinary measures for exercising and seeking accommodation of his sincerely held
religious beliefs against COVID-19 vaccination.
102. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2, United States Marine Corps, submitted
to the United States Marine Corps a request for religious exemption from the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate as an accommodation of her sincerely held beliefs.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2 articulated to his command that she has and exercises
sincerely held religious beliefs that compel her to abstain from receiving any of the
currently available COVID-19 vaccines. LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1’s request for a
55
religious exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he faces
potential court martial, dishonorable discharge, and other life-altering disciplinary
measures for exercising and seeking accommodation of his sincerely held religious
beliefs against COVID-19 vaccination
103. On September 16, 2021, ARMY RANGER submitted to the United
States Army a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine
Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs. ARMY RANGER
vaccines. ARMY RANGER met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request
for a religious exemption and accommodation and who found that ARMY
RANGER’s request was sincere. ARMY RANGER also submitted a pastor’s
verification letter with his request. ARMY RANGER’s request for a religious
exercising and seeking accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs against
COVID-19 vaccination.
104. On September 9, 2016, LANCE CORPORAL submitted to the United
States Marine Corps a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19
Vaccine Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs. LANCE
CORPORAL articulated to his command that he has and exercises sincerely held
religious beliefs that compel him to abstain from receiving any of the currently
56
available COVID-19 vaccines. LANCE CORPORAL’s request for a religious
exercising and seeking accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs against
COVID-19 vaccination.
105. On October 4, 2021, NATIONAL GUARDSMAN submitted to the
Virginia Army National Guard a request for religious exemption from the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs.
NATIONAL GUARDSMAN articulated to his command that he has and exercises
currently available COVID-19 vaccines. NATIONAL GUARDSMAN’s request for a
religious exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he has already
been removed from his scheduled deployment because of his request. NATIONAL
GUARDSMAN additionally faces potential court martial, dishonorable discharge,
and other life-altering disciplinary measures for exercising and seeking
accommodation of his sincerely held religious beliefs against COVID-19 vaccination.
NATIONAL GUARDSMAN has also been removed from his scheduled deployment
because of his request for an accommodation and exemption.
106. LIEUTENANT, United States Coast Guard submitted a request for a
religious accommodation and exemption from the United States Coast Guard
outlining her sincerely held religious objections to receiving one of the COVID-19
vaccines. Although she is currently under a temporary medical exemption while
57
breastfeeding her child born earlier this year and undergoing testing for allergies to
vaccine components, LIEUTENANT has been informed that should these waivers be
denied, she will may face dishonorable discharge, loss of benefits, and other
disciplinary measures if she does not accept the COVID-19 vaccine. LIEUTENANT
has also been informed that even if the medical waivers are approved, she may be
determined medically unfit for service and discharged.
107. On September 28, 2021, COLONEL submitted to the United States
Army a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs. COLONEL articulated to his
command that he has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs that compel him to
abstain from receiving any of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines. COLONEL
met with his unit’s Chaplain, who reviewed his request for a religious exemption and
accommodation and found that COLONEL’s request was sincere. COLONEL’s
request for a religious exemption and accommodation has not been approved, and he
108. TECHNICAL SERGEANT submitted to the United States Air Force a
request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate as an
accommodation of her sincerely held beliefs. TECHNICAL SERGEANT articulated
to her command that she has and exercises sincerely held religious beliefs that compel
her to abstain from receiving any of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.
58
TECHNICAL SERGEANT also requested and was granted a temporary medical
exemption because she is seven months pregnant, which will expire at the end of her
pregnancy. TECHNICAL SERGEANT’s request for a religious exemption and
accommodation has not been approved, and she faces potential court martial,
dishonorable discharge, and other life-altering disciplinary measures for exercising and
seeking accommodation of her sincerely held religious beliefs against COVID-19
vaccination.
109. On October 2, 2021, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR
submitted to the United States Department of Defense a request for religious
exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate as an accommodation of
his sincerely held beliefs. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR’s request for
a religious accommodation and exemption outlined his sincerely held religious
objections to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines because of their connections to
aborted fetal cell lines. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR’s request was
supported by a Chaplain’s and supervisor’s recommendations. DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR’s request has not been approved, and he has been
informed that it is likely to be denied. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR
110. FEDERAL CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR would like to
submit a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine
59
Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs, but has been deprived of
guidance on how and to whom to submit such a request. FEDERAL CIVILIAN
ENGINEER CONTRACTOR has also been informed that there is little chance such
requests will be approved. FEDERAL CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR
faces termination for exercising and seeking accommodation of his sincerely held
111. FEDERAL CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER would like to
submit a request for religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine
Mandate as an accommodation of his sincerely held beliefs, and to be able to provide
religious exemptions and accommodations to his employees who have sincerely held
religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccines, but has been deprived of guidance on
how and to whom to submit such a request. Given the Mandate’s requirement that all
employees of federal government contractors and subcontractors receive a COVID-19
vaccine, FEDERAL CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER faces termination of
his current government contracts and disqualification from future contracts as a result
of his exercising and seeking accommodation of his and his employees’ sincerely held
112. FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE is not married
yet, but hopes to be one day, and in that relationship to have a child or children as
God blesses her. She believes that “children are an heritage of the Lord,” and that
bearing a child or children in the context of marriage fulfils a Divine mandate.
60
FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE is aware that no long-term
studies have been performed on any of the COVID shots regarding their impact on
female fertility, and given her religious beliefs about marriage and childbearing,
cannot receive any of the COVID shots. FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR
EMPLOYEE fears being placed in the position of having to choose between her job
and her faith.
113. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECH
requested a religious exemption and accommodation from Defendants’ COVID-19
vaccine mandate on federal civilian contractors, and his request was denied.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECH was given until
October 15 to accept one of the vaccine or face termination.
114. While many Plaintiffs’ and class members’ religious exemption requests
have already been denied, the still pending requests have been effectively denied, as
Plaintiffs and class members with pending requests have been threatened with
dishonorable discharge, court martial, termination, or other life-altering disciplinary
measures for merely seeking accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs,
and some of these Plaintiffs have been informed by their superiors that no religious
exemption or accommodation will be given so there is no point in even making a
request.
115. For example, on October 14, 2021, Vice Admiral William Galinis,
Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), sent a warning to his entire
61
command, comprising more than 85,000 civilian and military personnel: “The
Executive Order mandating vaccinations for all federal employees has provided clear
direction. We are moving quickly toward a workforce where vaccinations are a
condition of employment. Frankly, if you are not vaccinated, you will not work for
the U.S. Navy.”
E. THE ONLY COVID-19 VACCINES AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED

STATES ARE ADMINISTERED UNDER EMERGENCY USE
AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO FDA APPROVED
COVID-19 VACCINE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
116. Despite the misreporting, there is no COVID-19 vaccine available in the
United States that has received full FDA licensing and approval.
117. On August 23, 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration
issued two separate letters pertaining to two separate COVID-19 vaccines. See Letter,
United States Food and Drug Administration to BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH
(Aug. 23, 2021), https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download (“BioNTech
Letter”); Letter, United States Food and Drug Administration to Pfizer, Inc. (Aug. 23,
2021), https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download (“Pfizer Letter”). (A true and
correct copy of the BioNTech Letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT E and
incorporated herein. A true and correct copy of the Pfizer Letter is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT F and incorporated herein.)
118. In the Pfizer Letter, the FDA confirms that, on December 11, 2020, it
granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
62
Vaccine. (Pfizer Letter at 1.) It also notes that the EUA was continued on December
23, 2020, February 25, 2020, May 10, 2021, June 25, 2021, and August 12, 2021.
(Pfizer Letter at 1-2.)
119. The Pfizer Letter also makes clear that there are scientific,
manufacturing, and legal differences between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine and the newly approved BioNTech COMIRNATY, COVID-19 Vaccine,
mRNA. (Pfizer Letter at 2 n.9, 3 n.10.)
120. Specifically, the FDA stated that although COMIRNATY was granted
full approval by the FDA, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine was still only
authorized under the EUA. (Pfizer Letter at 2 n.9 (“In the August 23, 2021 revision,
FDA clarified that, subsequent to the FDA approval of COMIRNATY (COVID-19
Vaccine, mRNA) for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and
older, this EUA would remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine
for the previously-authorized indication and uses. It also authorized COMIRNATY
(COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in
the approved biologics license application (BLA).” (emphasis added).
121. All existing vials of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine remain
available only under the authorization of the EUA. (Pfizer Letter at 2 n.9.)
122. On information and belief, the existing vials of Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID-19 Vaccine in the United States number in the millions, and that all of these
EUA vaccine doses will be administered before any does of the fully approved
63
COMIRNATY, meaning the fully approved COMIRNATY will not be available for
administration in the United States in the near future.
123. There are currently no available doses of COMIRNATY in the United
States, and COMIRNATY is not being manufactured for production or distribution
in the United States at this time.
124. In fact, the FDA Pfizer Letter plainly states that COMIRNATY is not
available in the United States: “Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine,
mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older,
there is no sufficient approved vaccine for distribution to the population.” (Pfizer
Letter at 6 n.12 (emphasis added).)
125. Thus, the FDA has admitted and acknowledged that COMIRNATY is
not available for the population in the United States, and thus extended the EUA for
the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine. (Id.)
126. Indeed, in order for the FDA to have extended the EUA for the Pfizer-
BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine, it was required to find that there were no alternatives
available for the Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine. (See Pfizer Letter at 6 (“There is no
adequate, approved, and available alternative to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.” (emphasis added).)
127. Moreover, though Secretary Austin stated that the Federal COVID-19
Vaccine Mandate “will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in accordance with FDA-approved
64
labeling and guidance,” (Ex. D at 1), additional military documents reveal that the
Department of Defense is not following its own directive and is, instead, using EUA
vaccines because there is no FDA approved vaccine available. In a Memorandum for
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director of the Defense Health Agency,
Terry Adirim, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, admitted that
the Department of Defense was not administering a fully licensed and approved
vaccine to the heroes in the United States Armed Forces, but was instead skirting
federal law by mandating an EUA vaccine instead. (A true and correct copy of Acting
Assistant Secretary Adirim’s Memorandum is attached hereto as EXHIBIT G and
incorporated herein.)
128. Specifically, the Memorandum stated that Department of Defense health
care providers “should use doses distributed under the EUA to administer the
vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine.” (Ex. G at 1 (emphasis
added).)
129. Thus, the only currently available COVID-19 vaccines are authorized
under EUA only, and therefore cannot be mandated by Secretary Austin. (See infra
Count I.)
130. The Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act provides that
subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary (of the

Department of Health and Human Services) may authorize the
65
introduction into interstate commerce, during the effective period of a

declaration under subsection (b), of a drug, device, or biological product
intended for use in an actual or potential emergency (referred to in this
section as an “emergency use.”
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(a)(1) (emphasis added) [hereinafter EUA Statute].
131. As an essential part of the explicit statutory conditions for EUA, the
EUA Statute mandates that all individuals to whom the EUA product may be
administered be given the option to accept or refuse administration of the product:
With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the

Secretary, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances
described in subsection (b)(1), shall, for a person who carries out any
activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions
on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or
appropriate to protect the public health, including the following:
....
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to

whom the product is administered are informed—
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the
product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of

such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are
unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the

product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of
the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available
and of their benefits and risks.
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I)–(III) (emphasis added).
132. The statutorily required Fact Sheets for each of the EUA COVID-19
vaccines acknowledge that individuals cannot be compelled to accept or receive the
66
vaccine. See, e.g., Pfizer-BioNTech, Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers (June 25,
2021), https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download (“It is your choice to receive
or not to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not
to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.” (emphasis added)).
133. Because all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are subject
to the EUA Statute restrictions and limitations, all individuals—including military
servicemembers, federal employees, and federal civilian contractors—have the
explicit right under the EUA Statute to accept or refuse administration of the products.
F. IRREPARABLE HARM TO PLAINTIFFS.
134. Because of Defendants’ refusal to grant Plaintiffs merited religious
exemptions from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff servicemembers
face the unconscionable choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or
facing court martial and dishonorable discharge from their faithful service to the
Nation or, in the case of Plaintiff civilian employees and contractors, termination from
their employment and contracts.
135. As a result of the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiffs have
suffered and are suffering irreparable injury by being prohibited from engaging in their
constitutionally and statutorily protected rights to the free exercise of their sincerely
held religious beliefs.
suffered and are suffering irreparable injury by being forced to choose between
67
maintaining the ability to feed their families and the free exercise of their sincerely held
religious beliefs.
suffered and are suffering irreparable injury by being stripped of their rights to equal
protection of the law and being subjected to disfavored class status in the United States
Armed Forces, federal employment, and federal contracting.
138. Military servicemember Plaintiffs also face the prospect of irreparable
medical injury as a result of the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. A recent study
conducted by the Department of Defense found “higher than expected rates of heart
inflammation following receipt of COVID-19 vaccines” among military
servicemembers. See Patricia Kime, DoD Confirms: Rare Heart Inflammation Cases Linked
to COVID-19 Vaccines, Military.com (June 30, 2021),
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/30/dod-confirms-rare-heart-
inflammation-cases-linked-covid-19-vaccines.html (emphasis added).
In fact, on or about June 29, 2021, Defendants knew that the mRNA
vaccines would causing myocarditis/pericarditis (a potentially serious
and deadly heart inflammation) in certain members of the military,
particularly in males 30 and under. In a study conducted by United States
Army, Navy, and Air Force physicians specifically found: A total of 23
male patients (22 currently serving in the military and 1 retiree; median
[range] age, 25 [20-51] years) presented with acute onset of marked
chest pain within 4 days after receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
All military members were previously healthy with a high level of
fitness. Seven received the BNT162b2-mRNA vaccine and 16 received
the mRNA-1273 vaccine. A total of 20 patients had symptom onset
following the second dose of an appropriately spaced 2-dose series. All
patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among 8
patients who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging within the
68
acute phase of illness, all had findings consistent with the clinical
diagnosis of myocarditis. . . . While the observed number of myocarditis
cases was small, the number was higher than expected among male
military members after a second vaccine dose.
Jay Montgomery, et al., Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19
Vaccines in Members of the US Military, Journal of American Medical Association
Network (June 29, 2021), available at
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601 (emphasis
added).
139. Dr. Matthew Oster, a member of the President’s COVID-19 Task Force,
confirmed the link between the COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis, stating: “It does
appear that mRNA vaccines may be a new trigger for myocarditis yet it does have
some different characteristics.” Jackie Salo, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines likely linked to
rare heart condition in kids: CDC panel, (June 23, 2021),
https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/covid-19-vaccines-from-pfizer-moderna-likely-
linked-to-rare-heart-condition-cdc-panel/.
140. Indeed, it is now well confirmed by the CDC and other studies that males
30 and under have an unacceptable risk of developing myocarditis as a result of the
COVID-19 vaccines. See EXHIBIT H, Declaration of Dr. Peter McCullough.
141. The COVID-19 genetic vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J) skipped testing
for genotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and oncogenicity. In other words, it is
unknown whether or not these products will change human genetic material, cause
birth defects, reduce fertility, or cause cancer. (Ex. H, McCullough Decl. ¶16.)
69
142. The Pfizer, Moderna, and JNJ vaccines are considered “genetic
vaccines”, or vaccines produced from gene therapy molecular platforms which
according to US FDA regulatory guidance are classified as gene delivery therapies and
should be under a 15-year regulatory cycle with annual visits for safety evaluation by
the research sponsors. FDA. Food and Drug Administration. (Id. ¶17.)
143. The FDA has “advised sponsors to observe subjects for delayed adverse
events for as long as 15 years following exposure to the investigational gene therapy
product, specifying that the long-term follow-up observation should include a
minimum of five years of annual examinations, followed by ten years of annual queries
of study subjects, either in person or by questionnaire.” (emphasis added) Thus, the
administration of the Moderna, Pfizer, and JNJ vaccines should not be undertaken
without the proper consent and arrangements for long-term follow-up which are
currently not offered in the US. (See, EUA briefing documents for commitments as to
follow up: Moderna , Pfizer , J&J ). They have a dangerous mechanism of action in
that they all cause the body to make an uncontrolled quantity of the pathogenic wild-
type spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least two weeks probably a longer
period based on the late emergence of vaccine injury reports. This is unlike all other
vaccines where there is a set amount of antigen or live-attenuated virus. This means
for Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J vaccines it is not predictable among patients who will
produce more or less of the spike protein. The Pfizer, Moderna, and JNJ vaccines
because they are different, are expected to produce different libraries of limited
antibodies to the now extinct wild-type spike protein. We know the spike protein
70
produced by the vaccines is obsolete because the 17th UK Technical Report on SARS-
CoV-2 Variants issued June 25, 2021, and the CDC June 19, 2021, Variant Report
both indicate the SARS-CoV-2 wild type virus to which all the vaccines were
developed is now extinct. (Id. ¶18.)
144. The spike protein itself has been demonstrated to injure vital organs such
as the brain, heart, lungs, as well as damage blood vessels and directly cause blood
clots. Additionally, because these vaccines infect cells within these organs, the
generation of spike protein within heart and brain cells, in particular, causes the body's
own immune system to attach to these organs. This is abundantly apparent with the
burgeoning number of cases of myocarditis or heart inflammation among individuals
below age 30 years. (Id.)
145. Because the US FDA and CDC have offered no interpretation of overall
safety of the COVID-19 vaccines according to the manufacturer or as a group, nor
have they offered methods of risk mitigation for these serious adverse effects which
can lead to permanent disability or death, no one should be pressured, coerced, receive
the threat or reprisal, or be mandated to receive one of these investigational products
against their will. Because the vaccine centers, CDC, FDA, and the vaccine
manufacturers ask for the vaccine recipient to grant indemnification on the consent
form before injection, all injuries incurred by the person are at their own cost which
can be prohibitive depending on the needed procedures, hospitalizations,
rehabilitation, and medications. (Id.)
71
146. The COVID-19 public vaccination program operated by the CDC and
the FDA is a clinical investigation and under no circumstance can any person receive
pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal on their free choice of participation. Violation
of this principle of autonomy by any entity constitutes reckless endangerment with a
reasonable expectation of causing personal injury resulting in damages. (Id. ¶21.)
147. The total safety reports in VAERS for all vaccines per year up to 2019
was 16,320. The total safety reports in VAERS for COVID-19 Vaccines alone through
October 1, 2021, is 778,683. Based on VAERS as of October 1, 2021, there were 16,310
COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported and 75,605 hospitalizations reported for the
COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, JNJ). By comparison, from 1999, until
December 31, 2019, VAERS received 3167 death reports (158 per year) adult death
reports for all vaccines combined. Thus, the COVID-19 mass vaccination is associated
with at least a 39-fold increase in annualized vaccine deaths reported to VAERS. (Id.
¶28.)
148. COVID-19 vaccine adverse events account for 98% of all vaccine-
related AEs from December 2020 through the present in VAERS. (Id. ¶29.)
149. The COVID-19 vaccines are not safe for general use and cannot be
deployed indiscriminately or supported, recommended, or mandated among any
group. (Id. ¶30.)
150. There are emerging trends showing that the vaccine is especially risky for
those 12- 29 in my expert medical opinion with complications in the cardiovascular,
72
neurological, hematologic, and immune systems. (See, Rose J, et al). Increasingly the
medical community is acknowledging the possible risks and side effects including
myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, Pulmonary Embolus, Pulmonary Immunopathology, and
severe allergic reaction causing anaphylactic shock. See Chien-Te Tseng, Elena
Sbrana, Naoko Iwata- Yoshikawa, Patrick C Newman, Tania Garron, Robert L
Atmar, Clarence J Peters, Robert B Couch, Immunization with SARS coronavirus
vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/ (last visited June 21, 2021); Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After
Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine—United States,
December 14– 23, 2020 (Jan 15, 2021). (Id. ¶31.)
151. The Centers for Disease Control has held emergency meetings on this
issue and the medical community is responding to the crisis. It is known that
myocarditis causes injury to heart muscle cells and may result in permanent heart
damage resulting in heart failure, arrhythmias, and cardiac death. These conditions
could call for a lifetime need for multiple medications, implantable cardio
defibrillators, and heart transplantation. Heart failure has a five-year 50% survival and
would markedly reduce the lifespan of a child or young adult who develops this
complication after vaccine-induced myocarditis. (Id. ¶32.)
152. COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis has a predilection for young
males below age 30 years. The Centers for Disease Control has held emergency
meetings on this issue and the medical community is responding to the crisis and the
73
US FDA has issued a warning on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for myocarditis.
In the cases reviewed by the CDC and FDA, 90% of children with COVID-19 induced
myocarditis developed symptoms and clinical findings sufficiently severe to warrant
hospitalization. Because this risk is not predictable and the early reports may represent
just the tip of the iceberg, no individual under age 30 under any set of circumstances
should feel obliged to take this risk with the current genetic vaccines particularly the
Pfizer and Moderna products. (Id. ¶33.)
153. Multiple recent studies and news reports detail people 18-29 dying from
myocarditis after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the CDC, 475 cases
of pericarditis and myocarditis have been identified in vaccinated citizens aged 30 and
younger. See FDA, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee
June 10, 2021, Meeting Presentation. The FDA found that people 12-24 account for
8.8% of the vaccines administrated, but 52% of the cases of myocarditis and
pericarditis were reported. (Id. ¶¶34-35.)
154. The CDC recently released data stating that there have been 267 cases of
myocarditis or pericarditis reported after receiving one dose of the COVID-19 vaccines
and 827 reported cases after two doses through June 11. There are 132 additional cases
where the number of doses received is unknown. Id. There have been 2466 reported
cases of myocarditis that have occurred, and the median age is thirty. (Id. ¶37.) And,
the CDC just announced that the vaccine is “likely linked” to myocarditis. Advisory
74
Board, CDC panel reports ‘likely association’ of heart inflammation and mRNA
COVID-19 vaccines in young people. (Id. ¶36.)
155. The irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and the class members they represent
is incalculable, unconscionable, and unconstitutional. As the Declaration of Nay
Chaplain (attached hereto as EXHIBIT I and incorporated herein) demonstrates, the
military heroes of this Nation are under inordinate strain from this forced mandate
that violates their conscience, and it is having tremendous mental health effects,
including a large number of military suicides. (Ex. I, ¶¶6-32.) The Declaration of
COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT (attached hereto as EXHIBIT J and incorporated
herein) likewise demonstrates immeasurable and irreparable injury.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
156. Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) because the class
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, each member’s claims
involve common questions of law and fact, the claims of the representatives are typical
of and identical to the claims of the other members of the class, and the representatives
here will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class in having the primarily
legal questions addressed by this Court in an expeditious manner. Between Active
Duty Military and Reserves, the United States Armed Forces comprise almost 2.3
million individuals, the federal government directly employees approximately 2.1
million, and federal contractors and subcontractors total about 3.7 million.
157. Plaintiffs have typicality with the other members of the class of military
servicemembers, civilian federal employees, and civilian federal contractors who have
75
been denied religious exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate,
estimated to number in the thousands or even tens of thousands, and who are
threatened with the unconscionable choice between conformance with their sincerely
held religious convictions adverse employment action.
158. Plaintiffs have commonality with the other members of the class because
they are all members of the United States Armed Forces, civilian federal employees,
or civilian federal contractors subject to the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.
159. Plaintiffs’ claims in this Court are representative of the claims of other
class members and involve questions of fact and law that are common to all class
members, including, inter alia,
(a) whether the EUA Statute requires that Plaintiffs be given the option to refuse
a COVID-19 vaccine because there is currently no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine
available;
(b) whether Defendants violate the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution by mandating that Plaintiffs accept and receive a COVID-19 vaccine
regardless of whether Plaintiffs’ and the other class members’ sincerely held religious
beliefs compel them to abstain from acceptance or receipt of the three currently
available COVID-19 vaccines; and
(c) whether the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires
Defendants and all those in active concert with them to provide accommodations and
exemptions to those Plaintiffs with sincerely held religious convictions that compel
76
them to abstain from receiving one of the three currently available COVID-19
vaccines.
160. Plaintiffs’ claims are representative and common among all class
members because the injury sustained—Defendants’ refusals to grant exemption and
accommodation for sincerely held religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccines and
the resulting adverse employment actions—are categorically identical. Indeed,
Plaintiffs and the other members of the class “have suffered the same injury.” Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
161. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
because they are seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against enforcement of the Federal COVID-19
Vaccine Mandate and Defendants’ refusals to entertain or grant religious exemptions
and accommodations which will provide relief to all class members.
162. Plaintiffs likewise satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
because Defendants have acted in a manner that applies to all members of the class
with respect to the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, and have refused to grant
religious accommodations to the entire group of class members who have sincerely
held religious objections to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine under the Mandate. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
163. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive and declaratory relief would
appropriately protect of the entire class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
77
164. Moreover, Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
because the common questions of law and fact applicable to the class members’ claims
predominate over individualized questions pertaining to individual class members.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
165. Adjudication of Plaintiffs and the other class members’ claims are more
fairly and efficiently adjudicated by a class action, as the claims for religious
accommodation and exemption from the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate are
virtually identical among all class members, the relevant facts applicable to each
individual class member are substantially similar, and the applicable substantive law
for the class members’ claims is identical in all respects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION

PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT,
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3
166. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and adopt each and every allegation in
paragraphs 1-165 as if fully set forth herein.
167. The Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act provides that
subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary (of the

Department of Health and Human Services) may authorize the
introduction into interstate commerce, during the effective period of a
declaration under subsection (b), of a drug, device, or biological product
intended for use in an actual or potential emergency (referred to in this
section as an “emergency use.”
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(a)(1) (emphasis added).
168. For ease of reference, Plaintiffs will refer to the general provisions of 21
U.S.C. §360bbb-3 as the “Emergency Use Authorization Statute” or “EUA Statute.”
78
169. The Emergency Use Authorization Statute further provides the
limitations on when the Secretary may authorize the emergency use of an unapproved
product for use in interstate commerce, and specifically limits such authorization to
circumstances where the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined certain
emergencies exits, where the Secretary of Defense has determined that certain military
emergencies exist, where the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
services has determined that certain public health emergencies exist, and where there
has been some identification of a material threat pursuant to other provisions of the
United States Code. See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1)(A)-(D).
170. The Secretary’s Emergency Use Authorization terminates whenever the
circumstances described in 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1)(A)-(D) cease to exist or where
the product approved for Emergency Use under the statute receives a change in
approval status. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii).
171. As an essential part of the explicit statutory conditions for EUA, the
EUA Statute mandates that all individuals to whom the EUA product may be
administered be given the option to accept or refuse administration of the product:
With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the

Secretary, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances
described in subsection (b)(1), shall, for a person who carries out any
activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions
on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or
appropriate to protect the public health, including the following:
....
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to

whom the product is administered are informed—
79
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the
product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of

such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are
unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the

product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of
the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available
and of their benefits and risks.
21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I)–(III) (emphasis added).
172. Consistent with the requirement in the Emergency Use Authorization
statute that all potential recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine be informed of the option
to accept or refuse the vaccine, the Emergency Use Authorization Fact Sheet for all
three of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines specifically states – as required by
the Emergency Use Authorization Statute – that individuals have the right to refuse
administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. A true and correct copy of the Emergency
Use Authorization Fact Sheet for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is attached hereto
as EXHIBIT ## and incorporated herein. A true and correct copy of the Emergency
Use Authorization Fact Sheet for the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT ## and incorporated herein. A true and correct copy of the
Emergency Use Authorization Fact Sheet for the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)
COVID-19 Vaccine is attached hereto as EXHIBIT ## and incorporated herein.
173. Specifically, the Emergency Use Authorization Fact Sheets for all three
COVID-19 vaccines state that it is the individual’s right to refuse administration of the
80
vaccine. (See Exhibit H at 4 (“It is your choice to receive or not to receive the
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change
your standard medical care.” (emphasis added)); Exhibit I at 5 (“It is your choice to
receive or not to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you
decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.” (emphasis
added)); Exhibit J at 5 (“It is your choice to receive or not to receive the Janssen
COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your
standard medical care.” (emphasis added))).)
174. “Congress has prohibited the administration of investigational drugs to
service members without their consent.” Doe v. Rumsfeld, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (D.D.C.
2004).
175. There is a very strict mechanism under which any military exception to
the EUA statute may be deployed, and neither have occurred here.
176. First, the President can waive the informed consent requirement, but that
Presidential waiver must be in writing and demonstrate that the President has
determined “that obtaining consent is not in the interests of national security.”
177. The strict criteria laid out in the statutory framework demonstrate the
limited scope of the exceptions to the informed consent requirement. To start, the
initial emergency declaration by the HHS Secretary must be based on one of four
statutorily listed justifications – none of which apply here. The first requires the
Secretary of Defense to find a domestic emergency, or significant potential for a
81
domestic emergency, based on heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical,
radiological, or nuclear agent. 21 U.S.C.A. § 360bbb–3(b)(1)(A) (“A “determination
by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a
significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack
with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.”).
178. The second requires a finding that there is a military emergency
involving a heightened risk to US military forces of an attack with a biological,
chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent, or an agent that may cause an imminently
life-threatening and specific risk to US military forces. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1)(B)
(“A “determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or
a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United
States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or
title 50, of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or
agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an
imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces.”
(emphasis added)).
179. The third requires a finding that there is a public health emergency, or
significant potential for a public health emergency that affects national security or the
health and security of US citizens abroad that involves a biological, chemical,
radiological, or nuclear agent or a disease or condition attributable to one of those
agents. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(b)(1)(C) (A “determination by the Secretary that there is
82
a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency,
that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and
security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological,
chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that
may be attributable to such agent or agents.” (emphasis added)).
180. The fourth requires the identification of a material threat involving
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents sufficient to affect national
security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad. 21 U.S.C.
§ 360bbb-3(b)(1)(D) (“The “identification of a material threat [involving chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear agents] pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public
Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the
health and security of United States citizens living abroad.” (emphasis added)).
181. Under the above statute, there is no legal basis on which the President
may waive consent for the COVID-19 vaccines for the military. Indeed, he has not
done so because he has no statutory authority under these facts to waive the EUA
requirements for the military.
182. Even after the HHS Secretary establishes that one of the four criteria are
satisfied, then under § 360bbb–3 the HHS Secretary then must make a separate
determination that an “agent” referred to in the declaration can cause a serious or life-
threatening disease or condition and that based on the scientific evidence available for
the product authorized under the EUA (i) it may be effective in diagnosing, treating,
83
or preventing the disease or serious life-threatening disease, (ii) the known and
potential benefits outweigh the risks; (iii) there is no adequate, approved, and available
alternative to the product authorized under the EUA; (iv) in the case of a military
emergency based on a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent, the
Secretary of Defense made the emergency use request; and (v) other criteria
established by regulation are satisfied.
183. None of the foregoing criteria has been satisfied.
184. Defendants have ignored their obligations under the EUA Statute.
185. There has been no Presidential declaration sufficient to invoke the
consent exceptions of the EUA statute.
186. There has been no domestic emergency, military emergency, public
health emergency, or material threat of a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear
agent, or a disease attributable to one of those conditions.
187. As such, Defendants are prohibited by the EUA statute from mandating
that any Plaintiffs or similarly situated military servicemembers receive or accept one
of the COVID-19 vaccines.
188. Put simply, the Emergency Use Authorization Statute provides that, as
a condition of receiving authorization for emergency use, ALL individuals to whom
the EUA product may be administered are given the right to accept or refuse
administration of the product – and this includes members of the military. And, of
84
course, the EUA right to accept or refuse applies and cannot be waived respecting
the federal employees and federal civilian contractor Plaintiffs.
189. The only currently available COVID-19 vaccines (Janssen/Johnson &
Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer/BioNTech) are only authorized for use under the
Emergency Use Authorization statute and have no general approval under the United
States Code.
190. Because all three of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines are
subject only to Emergency Use under the Emergency Use Authorization statute, the
Emergency Use Authorization statute mandates that all individuals to whom the
product may be administered, including Plaintiffs, be given the right to accept or
refuse administration of the product.
191. Put simply, because all three of the currently available COVID-19
vaccines are subject only to Emergency Use under the Emergency Use Authorization
statute, the Emergency Use Authorization statute prohibits Defendants from making
the COVID-19 vaccines mandatory.
192. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, on its face and as applied, has
caused, is causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm and actual and undue
hardship on Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
193. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the continuing deprivation
of their most cherished constitutional liberties and sincerely held religious beliefs.
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION
85
paragraphs 1–165 above as if fully set forth herein.
195. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits the government from abridging Plaintiffs’ rights to free exercise
of religion.
196. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that Scripture is the
infallible, inerrant word of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that they are to follow its
teachings.
197. Plaintiffs have and exercise sincerely held religious beliefs (articulated
supra Section B) which compel them to abstain from receiving or accepting any of the
currently available COVID-19 vaccines.
198. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, on its face and as applied,
targets Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by prohibiting Plaintiffs from seeking
and receiving exemption and accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs
against the COVID-19 vaccines.
impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, compels Plaintiffs to
either change those beliefs or act in contradiction to them, and forces Plaintiffs to
choose between the teachings and requirements of their sincerely held religious beliefs
in the commands of Scripture and the government’s imposed value system.
86
places Plaintiffs in an irresolvable conflict between compliance with the mandate and
their sincerely held religious beliefs.
puts substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs or
face loss of their ability to feed their families.
202. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, on its face and as applied, is
neither neutral nor generally applicable.
specifically targets Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs for disparate and discriminatory
treatment.
creates a system of individualized exemptions for preferred exemption requests while
discriminating against requests for exemption and accommodation based on sincerely
held religious beliefs. Regarding the federal employee and federal civilian contractor
Plaintiffs, Defendant Biden imposed the Vaccine Mandate on them while exempting
Congress, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the United States Postal Service.
Indeed, a certain husband and wife are both federal employees. One works for the IRS
while the other works for the Veterans Administration (VA). Although husband and
wife are working as federal employees, one is under the Vaccine Mandate, and one is
not. The VA has used a simple one-page form on which an employee merely checks a
box to request a religious exemption. Other federal employees are subject to a more
87
burdensome process or have received no guidance on submitting religious exemption
requests. The civilian federal contractors face a deadline of November 22, but none
have received any guidance on whether or where they might file a request for religious
exemption and accommodation.
constitutes a religious gerrymander by unconstitutionally orphaning exemption and
accommodation requests based solely on sincerely held religious beliefs of Plaintiffs
while permitting the more favored medical exemptions to be granted.
constitutes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their sincerely held religious
beliefs.
207. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, on its face and as applied, fails
to accommodate Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
208. There is no legitimate, rational, or compelling interest in the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate’s exclusion of exemptions and accommodations for
209. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate is not the least restrictive
means of achieving an otherwise permissible government interest.
88
211. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect the continuing
deprivation of their most cherished constitutional liberties and sincerely held religious
beliefs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief against Defendant as
hereinafter set forth in their prayer for relief
COUNT III - VIOLATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION

ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, et seq.
paragraphs 1–165 above as if fully set forth herein.
213. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides that
“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the
burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a).
214. RFRA also demands that, should the government substantially burden a
person’s free exercise of religion, it bears the burden of demonstrating that its burden
on religious exercise furthers a compelling government interest and is the least
restrictive means of achieving that compelling government interest. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000bb-1(b).
215. RFRA plainly applies to Defendants, as they constitute a “branch,
department, agency, instrumentality, and official of the United States.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000bb-2(1).
216. Congress enacted RFRA “to provide very broad protection for religious
liberty,” going “far beyond what [the Supreme Court] has held is constitutionally
89
required” under the First Amendment. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682,
693, 706 (2014) (emphasis added).
217. As such, RFRA encompasses a very broad definition of “exercise of
religion,” which includes “‘any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or
central to, a system of religious belief.’” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 696 (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 2000bb—5(7)(A)).
218. RFRA mandated that the law “’be construed in favor of a broad
protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this
chapter and the Constitution.’” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 696 (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc—3(g)).
219. “RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal
operation of other federal laws.” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1754 (2020).
220. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that Scripture is the
infallible, inerrant word of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that they are to follow its
teachings.
221. Plaintiffs have and exercise sincerely held religious beliefs (articulated
supra Section B) which compel them to abstain from receiving or accepting any of the
currently available COVID-19 vaccines.
targets Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs by prohibiting Plaintiffs from seeking
and receiving exemption and accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs
against the COVID-19 vaccines.
90
impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, compels Plaintiffs to
either change those beliefs or act in contradiction to them, and forces Plaintiffs to
choose between the teachings and requirements of their sincerely held religious beliefs
in the commands of Scripture and the government’s imposed value system.
places Plaintiffs in an irresolvable conflict between compliance with the mandate and
their sincerely held religious beliefs.
puts substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs or
face loss of their ability to feed their families.
specifically targets Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs for disparate and discriminatory
treatment.
creates a system of individualized exemptions for preferred exemption requests while
discriminating against requests for exemption and accommodation based on sincerely
held religious beliefs.
constitutes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their sincerely held religious
beliefs.
91
229. By forcing Plaintiffs into the unconscionable choice between violating
their sincerely held religious convictions or facing dishonorable discharge, courts
martial, termination, and other disciplinary measures, Defendants’ mandate
constitutes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.
230. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, on its face and as applied, fails
to accommodate Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
231. There is no legitimate, rational, or compelling interest in the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate’s exclusion of exemptions and accommodations for
232. The Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate is not the least restrictive
means of achieving an otherwise permissible government interest.
234. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the continuing deprivation
of their most cherished constitutional liberties and sincerely held religious beliefs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief against Defendants as
hereinafter set forth in their prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, respectfully pray for relief as follows:
92
A. That the Court issue a temporary restraining order restraining and
enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all
other persons in active concert or participation with them, from enforcing, threatening
to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate such that:
i. Defendants will immediately comply with the Emergency Use
Authorization Statute so that each individual has the “option to
accept or refuse” administration of the COVID-19 vaccines as
there is currently no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available
to the population;
ii. Defendants will immediately cease in their refusal to consider,
evaluate, or accept Plaintiffs’ requests for exemption and
accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs;
iii. Defendants’ will immediately grant Plaintiffs’ requests for
religious exemption and accommodation from the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate; and
iv. Defendants will immediately cease any actions arising from or
connected to the military servicemember Plaintiffs’ religious
exemption and accommodation requests, including current and
ongoing punishment and threatening to dishonorably discharge,
court martial, and impose other life-altering disciplinary actions
93
on Plaintiffs for failure to accept a COVID-19 vaccine that violates
their sincerely held religious beliefs;
v. Defendants will immediately cease any actions arising from or
connected to the federal civilian employee and contractor
Plaintiffs’ religious exemption and accommodation requests,
including demotion, termination, or other disciplinary actions on
Plaintiffs for failure to accept a COVID-19 vaccine that violates
B. That the Court issue a preliminary injunction pending trial, and a
permanent injunction upon judgment, restraining and enjoining Defendants and their
officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or
participation with them, from enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce,
or otherwise requiring compliance with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate such
that:
i. Defendants will immediately comply with the Emergency Use
Authorization Statute so that each individual has the “option to
accept or refuse” administration of the COVID-19 vaccines as
there is currently no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available
to the population;
ii. Defendants will immediately cease in their refusal to consider,
evaluate, or accept Plaintiffs’ requests for exemption and
accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs;
94
iii. Defendants’ will immediately grant Plaintiffs’ requests for
religious exemption and accommodation from the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate; and
iv. Defendants will immediately cease any actions arising from or
connected to the military servicemember Plaintiffs’ religious
exemption and accommodation requests, including current and
ongoing punishment and threatening to dishonorably discharge,
court martial, and impose other life-altering disciplinary actions
on Plaintiffs for failure to accept a COVID-19 vaccine that violates
v. Defendants will immediately cease any actions arising from or
connected to the federal civilian employee and contractor
Plaintiffs’ religious exemption and accommodation requests,
including demotion, termination, or other disciplinary actions on
Plaintiffs for failure to accept a COVID-19 vaccine that violates
C. That this Court render a declaratory judgment declaring that the Federal
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, both on its face and as applied by Defendants, is illegal
and unlawful in that it purports to remove federal civil rights and constitutional
protections from military servicemembers and civilian federal employees and
contractors, and further declaring—
95
i. the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate violates the federal
Emergency Use Authorization provisions of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act by imposing a mandatory COVID-19
shot upon Plaintiffs without giving the “option to accept or refuse”
the EUA product;
ii. the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, without sufficient
provision for exemption or accommodation for sincerely held
religious beliefs, violates the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution by imposing a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’
sincerely held religious beliefs;
iii. the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, without sufficient
provision for exemption or accommodation for sincerely held
religious beliefs, violates the federal Religious Freedom
Restoration Act by imposing a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’
sincerely held religious beliefs;
D. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal
obligations and relations within the subject matter here in controversy so that such
declaration shall have the full force and effect of final judgment;
E. That this Court retain jurisdiction over the matter for the purposes of
enforcing the Court’s order;
F. That this Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems
equitable and just under the circumstances.
96
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Roger K. Gannam

Mathew D. Staver
Horatio G. Mihet
Roger K. Gannam
Daniel J. Schmid*
Richard L. Mast*
LIBERTY COUNSEL
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854
Phone: (407) 875-1776
Facsimile: (407) 875-0770
Email: court@lc.org
hmihet@lc.org
rgannam@lc.org
dschmid@lc.org*
rmast@lc.org*
*Application for Admission pro hac vice pending
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
97

Liberty Counsel Military Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liberty Counsel Military Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liberty Counsel Military Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 8:21-cv-02429 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 1 of 120 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy, NAVY )

VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND

“Our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights

For their VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Defendants,

AUSTIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of

Defense, and ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, Plaintiffs, NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy,

LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1, United States Marine Corps, LIEUTENANT

COLONEL 2, United States Marine Corps, SECOND LIEUTENANT, United States

Marine Corps, ARMY RANGER, United States Army, LANCE CORPORAL 1,

MAJOR, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, NATIONAL GUARDSMAN, Virginia

Army National Guard, LIEUTENANT, United States Coast Guard, COLONEL,

United States Army, TECHNICAL SERGEANT, United States Air Force,

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR, United States Department of

Defense, FEDERAL CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR, FEDERAL

CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER, FEDERAL NUCLEAR

CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN

URGENCIES JUSTIFYING EMERGENCY RELIEF

“The Executive Order mandating vaccinations

1. Plaintiffs are United States Armed Forces servicemembers, federal

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that violates their

punishments including dishonorable discharge, court martial, other life-altering

disciplinary procedures, and termination.

COVID-19 shots. Dishonorable discharge is worse than criminal conviction for

the COVID-19 shots on account of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

3. The deadlines for servicemember Plaintiffs to receive the COVID-19

shots are fast approaching in October and November. No servicemembers should be

the stain of government coercion of conscience.

5. Moreover, while servicemembers certainly have duties and

responsibilities “without counterpart in civilian life,” Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420

the great experiment of America. Indeed, as Justice Brennan noted,

Military (or national) security is a weighty interest, not least

To be sure, generals and admirals, not federal judges, are

7. Servicemembers who protect the constitutional freedoms cherished in

point that constitutional rights are abolished.” Id. (emphasis added).

8. Servicemember Plaintiffs and all those dedicated members of the United

applicable statutes and regulations is unlawful. The military departments enjoy no

(D.D.C. 2016) (cleaned up).

graves of so many who made the ultimate sacrifice before them.

ordained and established the Constitution—including all of the rights it recognized

perfect union.’” Smith v. City of New Smyrna Beach, No. 6:11–cv–1110–Orl–37KRS,

protection of the Republic’s liberties.

importantly, “[o]ur Bill of Rights placed our survival on firmer ground—that of

(Black, J., dissenting).

of constitutional government.” Id.

constitutional values. Constitutional values are only as strong as our willingness to

reaffirm our staunch commitment to our fundamental freedoms is imperative to the

very survival of the American experiment. Servicemember Plaintiffs have

demonstrated their staunch commitment, and it is time that we honor ours.

strength of our constitutional guarantees lies in the unhesitating application in

(1934) (Sutherland, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).

14. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their commitments to the United States

disgraces the sacrifices these heroes have made.

15. Defendants’ vaccine mandate, ostensibly responding to a public health

solely because these protectors of our constitutional freedoms requested

is unnecessary and completely avoidable, but nonetheless imminent and real.

Plaintiffs imposed by these unlawful COVID-19 mandates.