In March 2024, A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed, in part, her prior ruling dismissing our lawsuit challenging the military COVID-19 vaccination mandate on behalf of four Navy SEALs.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed on mootness grounds our request for a preliminary injunction because the Biden administration had subsequently rescinded its military vaccine mandate for political reasons, the district court immediately dismissed our entire lawsuit on mootness grounds.
We promptly filed a motion for reconsideration, and it was granted. The court reinstated our claim for damages against Admiral Gilday, the former Chief of Naval Operations, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because the SEALs had lost special duty pay and suffered other economic hardships as a result of Gilday’s decision to deny them religious exemptions to the mandate. A request for damages prevents the case from becoming moot.
Admiral Gilday was the final decision maker for the Navy as to whether a religious exemption would be granted. He personally had the authority to grant the Navy SEALs a religious exemption to the mandate, but he refused.
Following the district court’s reinstatement of our damages claim against Gilday, the government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that sovereign immunity bars such claims, that damages are not an “appropriate relief” under RFRA, and that Gilday, nonetheless, has qualified immunity.
Today, we filed our response to Gilday’s motion, outlining the errors of his arguments. You can read our response here.