In February 2022, a federal judge in Tampa, Florida provided two military members with religious exemptions from President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandates for military personnel. One man being a Navy warship commander, while another being a Marine Lieutenant Colonel were provided the exemption by the judge explaining in forty-eight pages as to why the requirement places a burden on their religious exercise as the two men were said to be devout Christians. What makes this particular case unique is that the Navy and Marines have denied over 90% of 7,500 requests for religious exemptions of vaccinations. The question of this case is: is denying a religious exemption for a vaccination a violation of the free exercise clause?
In order to properly evaluate this debate, a couple of facts should be provided in regards to the military and vaccinations. In addition to the COVID-19 vaccine, military members regardless of locations are required to have the following vaccines, adenovirus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, measles, meningococcal, poliovirus, tetanus-diphtheria, and varicella. Vaccinations have been a part of the military lifestyle in order to protect members from dying of diseases. Those who argue in favor of not giving religious exemptions for vaccinations could argue that there is no one making these men serve in the military, just as no one is making Bucknell students attend Bucknell, thus allowing for a vaccine mandate. On the other hand, those in favor of granting religious exemptions of vaccinations could then argue that they are being denied certain job opportunities, college admissions, and different forms of travel based on their religious ideologies.
When looking at the case of the two men being granted their religious exemptions for the government mandated COVID-19 vaccination for military personnel, it is helpful to examine a previous court case in looking at the free exercise clause, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. This case was set in 1905, around the time in which smallpox was very common, the state of Massachusetts required citizens to be vaccinated, only when, in the opinion of the board of health, that was necessary for the public health or public safety. In this case, it was stated that there was an exemption for children that had received a signature from a physician stating that they were unfit for vaccination. However, in regards to religion, this case did state that, "We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state" (FindLaw).
In regards to the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, America has changed greatly since 1905. However, does the principle of the government doing what is necessary for the public health and safety change? I believe that the concept of the government being able to decide what is and is not necessary for the public health and safety can lead to a slippery slope. One then might ask when is a disease enough to be considered public health and safety? Would it be measured by the number of deaths? Would it be measured by the mortality rate? The free exercise clause protects citizens' rights to practice religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" government interest. The ultimate question is thus whether or not one believes that government-mandated vaccines for military personnel aligns with a "compelling" government interest.
In the case in regards to the two military men, the judge ruled in favor of religious exemption for vaccination. This ruling is in the minority, as 90% of 7,500 requests for religious exemptions for vaccinations have been denied by the Navy or Marines. The military over time has tended to be more liberal on its policies with different groups such as women, LGTBQ, and other minorities. Regardless of my personal beliefs on vaccination mandates, I see the "compelling" government interest aspect of vaccinations as a factor that would prevent courts from granting religious vaccinations. I am surprised that the Tampa judge allowed the exemption. A couple of closing questions that I would pose is how are courts going to rule moving forward? Would every religion get their own exemption from mandatory military vaccinations? Will the government keep requiring military personnel to be vaccinated knowing of the religious exemptions?
https://www.fox13news.com/news/tampa-judge-grants-2-military-members-exemption-from-vaccine-mandate-on-religious-grounds
https://www.newsweek.com/list-vaccines-mandated-us-military-covid-1641228
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion
7 comments:
I agree with you that I was surprised to see the Tampa judge granted the exception for these two military men given that court precedent hasn’t been big on granting military exemptions for mandatory vaccines.
In response to your closing questions:
1. Courts may be more inclined to grant military exceptions in relation to vaccinations (depending on how severe the situation is … this case might have had a different outcome had the men asked for the religious exemption in 2020).
2. If one religion was granted a military exception from mandatory vaccinations I would assume all religions would be granted the same exceptions.
3. I believe the military will keep requiring military personnel to be vaccinated because there is a reason it is mandatory. Additionally, I would assume by keeping it mandatory most military personal wouldn’t ask for the religious exemption even if they know they could receive it.
I wonder what set aside the request of these two military personnel from the other 90% of requests. The article cited from the case Jacobson v. Com. Of Massachusetts states that if it is necessary for the health of the country, vaccinations can be required. In addition, the Fox13 article cited states that it is extremely difficult to get religious exemptions in the military due to the discipline that is valued. I do not think that an exemption should have been provided to these two people. It seems to me that Covid-19 is actively a compelling issue in the United States, and I think it is difficult for the government to decide what is compelling or not as well.
My biggest question is how are these two men that much different than the other 90%. The acceptance of the two soldiers appeals would not make much sense if their whole argument were based on religion. I think vaccinations need to be mandatory in the military regardless of your religious beliefs. My father served in the army for 28 years and did three tours overseas. He was asked to take all kinds of vaccines before his tours. These all have a purpose of keeping our soldiers safe. Although I understand the soldiers' religious beliefs may challenge this idea, the point of the vaccines is to keep every soldier safe and healthy.
I think you did an amazing job outlining the relevant facts of the case and providing a clear picture regarding both sides of the argument! For me, the main consideration that pops up in my head is the ‘sincerity’ of the religious beliefs that formulate the basis of these vaccination exemption requests. More specifically, what made the two military members in Tampa different than the 90% of the other 7,500 requests that were denied despite outlining a religious exemption. However, despite these concerns, I do disagree with your conclusion, as I believe it is a violation of the free exercise clause to deny a ‘sincere’ religious exemption for a vaccination (Again, who decides what is sincere?, a very challenging question!). Although I agree that there is a compelling state interest in maintaining public health and safety, I believe there is a greater interest in protecting one’s rights to freely exercise their religion. Therefore, I think the vaccination mandate is an appropriate measure to ensure public health and safety, but there should be the option to religiously exempt if it truly impinges on their right to freely exercise. Additionally, most of the military is generally protected through the mandate, allowing a minority of cases (that have been approved) to make that choice to greater expose themselves. However, I do agree with your point that allowing the government to decide what is necessary for public health (like mandating the vaccine) can lead to a slippery slope, due to a long history of governments abusing their power to actively deny the rights of citizens. Therefore, I think it is even more important that religious exemptions be allowed to prevent an infringement on religious rights in this area, due to the ways the opposite ruling may shape the application of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.
I think you did a great job with the summary of the facts of this case. What interests me most is one of your closing questions: "Would every religion get its own exemption from mandatory military vaccinations?" I want to elaborate on this further by asking, “Would those with the belief in the absence of religion or God, meaning atheism, get an exemption from mandatory military vaccinations? The policy of the government, and the Supreme Court when reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, is neutrality to all religions, including atheism or citizens with no religious affiliation. What if these two men were atheists, and claimed that getting a vaccination went against their devoutness to their belief that there is no God? This could be applied to any military personnel who claim a sincere faith, religious or purposely non-religious, in something that conflicts with a vaccination mandate. If these exemptions failed to be applicable to those with no religious affiliation, would it not then be privileging that military personnel with a devoutness to a specific God?
I really enjoyed reading your arguments. I think there is a compelling state interest for the government to impose vaccinations on military personal because they work and are one with the state. If it was a private security firm I would argue that the state has no compelling interest, but since the military personal knowingly align themselves with the state the state has compelling interest to protect them all from diseases. To answer one of your discussion questions, I would argue the military personal should not have an exemption from this vaccination because then all other religions would also have to get an exemption and then I would assume a majority would not be vaccinated. I understand the context of how a government should not impose on what one does with their body, especially due to their religious beliefs or lack there of, but I would argue that signing up for the military and being one with the state you lose some individual rights. One being the right to not have a vaccination, because if one person gets sick the majority of the military will due to the close quarter living situations.
What stood out to me most in your post was the idea of the government's compelling interest, which in this case, it seems that the government has more than a compelling interest to keep those serving safe from disease. Since signing up to join the military is a personal choice, it should be understood that one needs to be vaccinated up to their standards, and the compelling reason is pretty evident. I feel as though the major issue in this case would be bias, as a qualified judge would understand the compelling interest here, and only personal beliefs would conclude in this decision of exemption.
Post a Comment