On January 30, 2020, the worldwide outbreak that we all lived through, COVID-19, interrupted all of our lives. The COVID vaccine was made available by December 2020. President Joseph Biden announced on July 29, 2021 that there would be vaccine mandates for federal employees and contractors. Specifically, the President was targeting the Department of Defense (DoD) that would require all military service members to get the vaccination. They were required to obtain the vaccination with 90 to 120 days from when the requirement was in place. The CNO and the Commandant of the Marine Corps were mandated to hold non-exempt service members responsible. An important point to note is that there has not been religious exemption for any vaccination requirement for the past 7 years. For Navy members, if they refused to get the COVID vaccine, the Navy "may seek recoupment of applicable bonuses, special and incentive pays, and the cost of training and education." For Navy SEALs, this would be over 1 million for each one of them.
Navy SEALs are elite, military members that must be suited for all unconventional warfare. They must go through intense training that includes physical and mental challenges. They must be able to adapt to any type of environment and quick on their feet. Navy SEALs have dedicated many years to serve for their country. For those who felt that their religious freedom was being taken away, they feel like they are not able to be part of this anymore.
In this case, there were 35 Navy SEALs who filed against the Department of Defense and President Biden. The Plaintiffs in this case consisted of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants branches of Christianity. They asked about seeking religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate. When they filed for the religious accommodation, they were rejected and threatened with punishment, involuntary separation, or even a court-martial.
The most salient issue at hand is that the Navy military members especially the Navy SEALs are having their rights to free exercise violated. The Dod and President Biden are forcing them to have to choose between serving for their country/their career and going against their religious beliefs. All of the Plaintiffs' religious beliefs fell under these 4 categories: (1) opposition to abortion and the use of aborted fetal cell lines in development of the vaccine; (2) belief that modifying one's body is an afront to the Creator; (3) direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine; and (4) opposition to injecting trace amounts of animal cells into one's body. In many cases, the Plaintiffs' commanding officers recommended that their religious accommodation forms be approved, but they were rejected almost 100% of the time.
I think that in this case that the Navy SEALs are having their First Amendment Rights violated. I think that there is a substantial burden placed upon the Navy SEALS. For them, they have two options placed in front of them. The first option is that they can choose to submit to the DoD and President Biden and get the vaccine which goes against their religious beliefs. The second option is that they can choose to not get the vaccine which will end with other financial consequences, but they would be following their religious beliefs. The second important factor regards compelling state interest. Although they recognize that COVID-19 was a compelling state interest, as demonstrated in Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the limits of this compelling state interest was finite. There was a compelling state interest, but there was a substantial burden placed upon the individual with not enough compelling state interest along with no less restrictive means. In the current case, there was not an option for a less restrictive option for the Plaintiffs.
Another important factor is making it neutral and comparing it to secular activity, they do not treat secular and nonsecular the same. For example, people who are medically exempt, allergic, or participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial were able to be exempt from the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. This was opposite from the religious exemptions that were denied. It is also not generalizable since they have to name the reason for the exemption which was shown as displaying favoritism.
With all of the reasons above that display how the Plaintiffs' rights were violated, the last significant piece is that there was no harm in the 35 unvaccinated compared to the amount vaccinated. 99.4% were vaccinated whereas only 0.6% were not vaccinated. Therefore, if there was to be any harm, there was such as small chance of it happening in the first place. Along with that, is always the critique of the slippery slope. The main argument that was presented for this case that I also agree with is that there was such a minute group who decided to remain unvaccinated during a huge pandemic. So, I do not see these numbers rising, and they did not contribute to the rise in COVID-19 especially since many of them had the antibodies which makes them naturally immune to COVID-19 anyways.
References
U.S. Navy SEAL Careers | Navy.com
U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 578 F. Supp. 3d 822 | Casetext Search + Citator
images (310×163) (gstatic.com)
U.S. Navy SEALs - Cases - First Liberty
10 comments:
Hi Abby!
You provided a thorough description and explanation of why you believe the rejection of the Navy SEALs request for an exemption to the vaccine is unconstitutional. In the first half of this reading, I disagreed with the fact that these Navy SEALs should have an accomodation for the vaccine, but as you provided compelling commentary, I eventually sided with your argument. Before you mentioned the compelling interest present in this case, I was reminding myself of the extremely compelling interest of the state to have all citizens as protected as they can be with vaccination in order to reduce the spread of Covid-19. However, you made a good point that while there is a compelling interest, the substantial burden is greater for these individuals. Additionally, there is no least restrictive means in fulfilling this requirement, a difficult but possible (as we see here) occurrence that can present a grave and morally difficult problem to not only the individuals, but the government. Lastly, I think something that really brought your argument home was the inclusion of real-life statistics regarding the spread of Covid-19. Overall, you did a wonderful job describing and ruling on this topic. Well done.
Hi Abby!
This is a great post. While I agree with your reasoning, historically the judicial system has provided the military with a tremendous amount of leeway in determining what the military is permitted to require, as a result of being part of an incredibly-regulated government entity that has the crucial role of ensuring national safety. I would encourage you to look at Goldman v. Weinberger, which describes a situation where the court ruled in favor of the military, despite their apparent discriminatory decision to prohibit Goldman from wearing a yarmulke on duty.
Great post, and I agree with Kim. I also immediately thought of Goldman v. Weinberger, which as Kim noted, sided with the military. I agree with your arguments, but due to precedents that were created before this case, I am unsure if the Supreme Court will allow religious exemptions. However, I disagreed with the Goldman case, and I do think military members should still be allowed religious exemptions.
Abby, this is a very interesting case. Similarly to how previous students commented, while I agree with your argument, I believe the precedent set with the Goldman v. Weinberger case would also apply for this case. In Goldman, Justice Rehnquist, arguing for the majority, noted that military regulations are judged with less scrutiny than regulations of a comparable nature are when they apply to civilians. While it would be much more likely for the free exercise rights of an average civilian worker to be violated if their requests for a religious exemption from the Covid-19 vaccine were denied, this is unfortunately not the case with the Navy SEALs, even despite the fact that those 35 unvaccinated Navy SEALs were not posing a clear harm at the time.
Great Post Abby! This is a very interesting case and this could go either way. While I agree that there is a burden presented on the Navy Seals it is outweighed by the compelling state interest. As pointed in out several other comments the previous case involving military regulations are scrutinized less. Similar to prison regulations, the court tends to side with the defendants in these type of cases. With this being said I believe it in the military jurisdiction to force the Navy SEALs to be vaccinated.
Hi Abby,
I think this is a very interesting case, however I think that the precedent case of Goldman v. Weinberger present a compelling argument for the military. Similarly, when joining the military, there are certain practices that must be followed for safety. The individual joining the military does agree to this and it is something they should consider. Based on precedent cases, it seems as if that the military jurisdiction varies from the civilian one and this seems to fall in a place where there would be differences.
This case caught my eye very fast. Growing up in a military I found this very cool to read about. I see both sides of this argument. Im going to agree with you even though I do see the argument of a very compelling state interest and the severity of COVID. I think that their is indeed a very substantial burden being placed on the SEALS. They did join the military where practices must be followed but in this case I think that is very unforeseen and that it is a burden to make them get the vaccine. If it conflicts with their religious beliefs and the fact that it is such a small group I think they should be exempt.
Abby,
I really appreciate the topic you've brought to light in this post - I am focusing on a similar push and pull between constitutional rights and public health mandates in my final paper! I disagree with some of the previous commenters that NAVY seals should not be held to the same standards of the Constitution as civilians because they are in the military (similar to imprisoned folks). If anything, in my opinion, they should be given preferential treatment because, without our military, we wouldn't even be able to enjoy the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution. That being said, under the same scrutiny as civilian exemptions, if secular accommodations are granted, it is my belief that religious accommodations must also be granted. Additionally, as you have argued, the stats support a state interest not compelling enough to override religious freedoms. Exempting Navy SEALs from the vaccine mandate does not pose a significant risk to public health. SEAL teams operate in controlled environments with strict protocols to minimize exposure to infectious diseases. Given their rigorous physical conditioning and adherence to safety measures, the likelihood of SEALs contracting and transmitting COVID-19 seems to be minimal compared to the burden imposed by the infringement of their freedom to exercise religion. Great job!
This is a really interesting case, and I am definitely conflicted by it. On the one hand, I think that the sincerity of these soldiers beleifs are not to be challenged, and it is unfortunate to have to put them in a situation where they are compromising their religious beliefs. However, I believe that this vaccine is the least restrictive means for reaching the governments goal of protecting their troops from sickness, but I also understand the idea that if there is a non secular reason one can not get vaccinated (medical), then maybe they should be allowed the exemption. Overall I am happy I am not deciding this case.
I agree with your analysis of this case that not allowing religious exemptions for members of the military would be a violation of their Free Exercise Clause. The individuals that want an exemption from the Covid-19 vaccine express deeply held religious beliefs that express why they do not want the vaccines. This also leaves the individuals with a choice of going against their deeply held religious beliefs or not continuing with their job. I do understand that there is a compelling state interest to ensure that individuals have the covid vaccine. But other exemptions are provided for medical reasons so they should not treat religious exemptions differently.
Post a Comment