Federal Court Revives Litigation Over Military’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

A federal appeals court has revived a legal challenge to the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 22 sent the challenge back to a district court judge who had thrown out the case.

The case challenges the military’s 2021 requirement that members and civilian employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine, unless they were approved for an exemption on medical or religious grounds.

Amy Arzamendi, Michael Orloff, and Brooke Stadler, Christian civilian workers for the Department of War, sued in 2023 over the mandate after officials did not decide on their requests for a religious exemption and they were forced to comply with protocols for unvaccinated employees, including testing requirements.

A district court sided with the government. The judge said the claims were moot because courts had blocked the vaccination requirement and because it was rescinded prior to the suit being lodged. The judge also denied claims relating to the protocols, deciding plaintiffs had not shown a conflict between the protocols and their religious beliefs.

In the new ruling, three judges from the Fifth Circuit agreed on the latter point. But they said the challenge to the vaccine mandate is not moot.

“Plaintiffs argue that because they sought damages in addition to injunctive relief, their claims for damages were not mooted by the rescission. They further contend that, despite the rescission, they sufficiently pleaded that the vaccination requirement caused them to suffer harm,” the panel stated. “Because Plaintiffs sought both injunctive relief and damages, the mootness doctrine does not apply to their claims for damages.”

The per curiam order came from Circuit Judges Priscilla Richman, Don Willett, and Dana Douglas.

The panel reversed the dismissal of the claims for damages and remanded that part of the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

Willett said in a partial concurrence and partial dissent that he also concluded that Stadler and Arzamendi adequately provided evidence of religious objections to COVID-19 guidelines.

The Department of War declined to comment.

The Department of Justice, which represents the military and government agencies in court, did not respond to requests for comment.

Feds for Freedom, which originally challenged the mandate, celebrated the development.

“The harms done to our civil servants did NOT just disappear when the mandate was rescinded. This decision is a tremendous leap towards justice!” Stephanie Weidle, executive director of the group, which represents federal employees, said in a statement. “We look forward to further litigation regarding the discriminatory masking and testing policies.”