IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BRYAN P. SPENCE, TYLER W. STEF, 

RYAN CORCORAN, MITCHELL B. PIKE, 

STEVEN R. HAYNES, ANDREW GRIEB, 

DANIELLE A. RUNYAN, CHRISTOPHER M. 

WU, and ALAN SOSEBEE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity 

as United States Secretary of Defense, 

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE, and FRANK KENDALL, in his official 

capacity as United States Secretary of the Air Force, 

Defendants. 

Case No: 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

The Plaintiffs Bryan P. Spence, Tyler W. Stef, Ryan Corcoran, Mitchell B. Pike, 

Steven R. Haynes, Andrew Grieb, Danielle A. Runyan, Christopher M. Wu, and Alan 

Sosebee (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, hereby complain as follows and allege against Defendants Lloyd J. Austin, III, in 

his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense, the United States Department 

of Defense, and Frank Kendall, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of the 

Air Force: 

22-453

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 48 PageID 1
2 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is a class action brought to remedy Defendants’ discriminatory policies 

that substantially burden the religious exercise of Plaintiffs and other members of the Air 

Force who object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination based on their sincerely held 

religious beliefs. 

2. This action is based upon the United States Constitution and the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, concerning the denial of Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to 

the free exercise of religion. 

3. Defendants have mandated that all members of the Air Force receive a 

COVID-19 vaccine, or be involuntarily separated. In theory, Defendants offer medical, 

administrative, and religious accommodations to that mandate. But in practice, only 

servicemembers with medical or administrative reasons for an exemption from the mandate 

are accommodated. Religious accommodation requests (“RARs”) are universally denied 

unless the requester is already imminently leaving the Air Force. 

4. Plaintiffs each have sincere religious beliefs that prohibit them from 

receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Each submitted an RAR, and each request has been 

denied. Even before the initial denials, though, Defendants began their discriminatory 

course of conduct against Plaintiffs and other requesters. Plaintiffs have lost promotions 

that had already been announced, received official discipline, been barred from training 

opportunities, and placed in a no-pay status, to name only a few kinds of the harm they 

have already endured. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 48 PageID 2
3 

5. Medical and administrative accommodation requesters received no such 

punitive treatment. Unvaccinated individuals with the same duties as Plaintiffs have not 

been the subjects of adverse action, simply because their requests were secular rather than 

religious. 

6. Defendants’ policies and practices have deprived and will continue to 

deprive Plaintiffs of their paramount rights and guarantees under the United States 

Constitution and federal law. Defendants committed each act alleged herein under the color 

of law and authority. 

7. This lawsuit is brought as a class action to redress Defendants’ violations of 

the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 

1993(“RFRA”) on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated members 

of the United States Air Force. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because this action arises under the United States Constitution and federal law, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1346 because this is a civil action against the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel 

an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed 

to the plaintiff, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c) because Plaintiffs’ religious exercise has been 

burdened by Defendants. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 48 PageID 3
4 

9. This Court has authority to award the requested declaratory relief pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02; the requested injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202; and 

costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 

10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because 

Defendants are officers and employees of the United States and agencies of the United 

States, and because the military workplace and the location in which a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to the claims of at least one Named Plaintiff is in Fort 

Worth, Texas, in this Court’s District and Division. Specifically, the Defendants’ COVID19 Vaccine Mandate and the related policies that discriminate against Plaintiffs’ sincerely 

held religious beliefs were implemented against and caused injury to as least one Named 

Plaintiff in this District and Division by Department of Defense officials in this District 

and Division. Defendants’ policies were also implemented against and caused injury to 

members of the class residing or working in this District. 

PARTIES 

A. Named Plaintiffs 

11. Named Plaintiff Bryan P. Spence is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force 

currently serving as an F-16 Instructor Pilot at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort 

Worth in Texas, and who resides in Aledo, Texas. 

12. Named Plaintiff Tyler W. Stef is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force 

currently stationed at Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, Texas, and who resides in 

Newark, Texas. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 48 PageID 4
5 

13. Named Plaintiff Ryan Corcoran is a Major in the Air Force currently serving 

as Individual Mobilization Augmentee to the Deputy Chief Regional Analysis Branch, and 

performing his duties remotely from Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. 

14. Named Plaintiff Mitchell B. Pike is a First Lieutenant in the Air Force, 

currently serving as an F-16 Fighter Pilot stationed at Holloman Air Force Base in 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

15. Named Plaintiff Steven R. Hayes is a Major in the Air Force, currently 

serving as an Assistant Flight Commander/Instructor Pilot assigned to the 5th Flying 

Training Squadron at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, Oklahoma. 

16. Named Plaintiff Andrew Grieb is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, 

currently serving as a T-6 Instructor/Evaluator Pilot in the 5th Flight Training Squadron at 

Vance Air Force Base in Enid, Oklahoma. 

17. Named Plaintiff Danielle A. Runyan is a Major in the Air Force, currently 

serving as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate to 8th Air Force in Louisiana. 

18. Named Plaintiff Christopher M. Wu is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force

currently serving as Deputy Chief of the Commercial Litigation Field Support Center at 

Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. 

19. Named Plaintiff Alan Sosebee is a Captain in the Air Force currently serving 

as Chief of Training for the 306th Flying Training Group in the 94th Flying Training 

Squadron at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 48 PageID 5
6 

B. Defendants 

20. Defendant Lloyd J. Austin, III, is the United States Secretary of Defense. 

Secretary Austin oversees and leads the United States Department of Defense. Secretary 

Austin issued a memorandum on August 24, 2021, requiring the United States Armed 

Forces to vaccinate all service members, including Plaintiffs. Defendant Austin is sued in 

his official capacity. 

21. Defendant United States Department of Defense (“DoD”) is an executive 

branch department that coordinates and supervises all agencies and functions of the 

government related to the United States Armed Forces, including the vaccination policies 

at issue herein. 

22. Defendant Frank Kendall is the United States Secretary of the Air Force. As 

Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary Kendall oversees and leads the Department of the Air 

Force (“DAF” or “Air Force”). Secretary Kendall issued a directive on September 3, 2021, 

requiring the DAF to vaccinate all servicemembers, including Plaintiffs. Secretary Kendall 

is sued in his official capacity. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Plaintiffs’ Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs 

23. Plaintiffs are members of the United States Air Force who each object to 

receiving a COVID-19 vaccination based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. 

24. Plaintiffs are part of the approximately 3% of Air Force service members 

who have not been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Plaintiffs object to receiving the 

COVID-19 vaccine based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 48 PageID 6
7 

25. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs generally fall into the following categories: (1) 

opposition to abortion and the use of fetal cell lines in development of the vaccine; (2)

belief that the mRNA technology utilized in some COVID-19 vaccines usurps God’s 

creation of the human genome; and (3) that the body is a temple, and taking the vaccine 

would defile that temple. 

26. Plaintiffs do not believe that staying true to their faith means exposing 

themselves or others to unnecessary risk. Quite the contrary, they view life—whether their 

own or that of their fellow servicemembers—as sacred and deserving protection. Plaintiffs, 

therefore, do not object to safety measures that reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in 

the workplace. Indeed, Defendants employed such measures during the prior year and a 

half before COVID-19 vaccines were made widely available. 

B. The President’s Orders to Vaccinate the Armed Forces 

27. On or about July 29, 2021, the President directed the DoD to add the COVID19 vaccine to its list of required immunizations for all service members. See FACT SHEET: 

President Biden to Announce New Actions to Get More Americans Vaccinated and Slow 

the Spread of the Delta Variant, WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM (July 29, 2021), 

https://tinyurl.com/29n632a7 (“Today, the President will announce that he is directing the 

Department of Defense to look into how and when they will add COVID-19 vaccination 

to the list of required vaccinations for members of the military.”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 48 PageID 7
8 

28. The President’s directive was issued over seven months after COVID-19 

vaccines became available.1

The DoD’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

29. On August 24, 2021, Defendant Austin issued a memorandum entitled 

Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Service 

Members (the “DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate”).

30. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate directs the DoD to vaccinate all 

active duty and reserve service members against COVID-19. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate states that service members who previously contracted COVID-19, and now have 

active antibodies against the virus, are not considered fully vaccinated and are still required 

to receive a vaccination against COVID-19. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

provides that the DoD will only use or administer COVID-19 vaccines that are fully 

licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in accordance with 

FDA-approved labeling and guidance. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate provides 

that service members who previously received a vaccination against COVID-19 under 

FDA Emergency Use Authorization or World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing 

are considered fully vaccinated. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate provides that 

1 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product: Rev. Mem., U.S. Food 

& Drug Admin. (Dec. 11, 2020), https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download (EUA for 

Pfizer vaccine); Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product: Rev. 

Mem., U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (Dec. 18, 2020), 

https://www.fda.gov/media/144673/download (EUA for Moderna vaccine); Emergency 

Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product: Rev. Mem., U.S. Food & Drug 

Admin. (Feb. 27, 2021), https://www.fda.gov/media/146338/download (EUA for Johnson 

& Johnson vaccine). 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 8 of 48 PageID 8
9 

service members actively participating in COVID-19 clinical trials are exempted from the 

DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate until the trial is complete. Although DoD policy on 

immunizations states that medical commanders, commanding officers, and command 

surgeons will “ensure patients are evaluated for preexisting immunity” and states that 

“evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar 

circumstances” may be the basis for a medical exemption,2 the DoD COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate states that “those with previous COVID-19 infection are not considered fully 

vaccinated.” 

31. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate states that the DoD will implement 

the DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate consistent with DoD Instruction 6205.02, “DoD 

Immunization Program,” dated July 23, 2019.3 The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

states that the Military Departments, including the Air Force, should use existing policies 

and procedures to manage mandatory vaccination of service members to the extent 

practicable. The DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate states that vaccination of service 

members will be subject to any identified contraindications and any administrative or other 

exemptions established in Military Department policy. 

32. Defendants issued subsequent guidance stating that service members who are 

not fully vaccinated by established deadlines will immediately suffer adverse consequences 

2

See Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases, Air 

Force Instruction (“AFI”) 48-110 ¶¶ 1-4, 2-6 https://tinyurl.com/3fack7um. 

3 James N. Stewart, DOD Instruction 6205.02: DoD Immunization Program, OFF. UNDER 

SEC’Y DEF. PERS. READINESS (July 23, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/5f9crvu2. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 9 of 48 PageID 9
10 

as directed by their service components. The adverse consequences may include: courtmartial (criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership 

positions, removal from promotion lists and assignments, inability to attend certain military 

training and education schools, removal from assigned job duties, inability to retire in good 

standing, loss of special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, involuntary placement 

into the Individual Ready Reserve without access to military benefits, recoupment of 

money spent training the service member, and loss of leave and travel privileges for both 

official and unofficial purposes. 

33. According to the Air Force’s most recent statistics, 97% of the Air Force is 

now vaccinated.4

C. The Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

34. On September 3, 2021, Secretary Kendall issued a memorandum to all Air 

Force Commanders, entitled Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of 

Department of the Air Force Military Members (the “Air Force COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate”) (collectively, the DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate and the Air Force COVID19 Vaccine Mandate are the “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates”). The Air Force COVID-19 

Vaccine Mandate incorporates by reference the DoD COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate’s 

provisions. 

35. The Air Force COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate directs all Air Force 

commanders to take “all steps necessary to ensure all uniformed Airmen and Guardians 

4 Sec’y of the Air Force Pub. Affairs, DAF COVID-19 Statistics – May 2022, DEP’T OF 

A.F. (May 17, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/mrx7kvnd. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 10 of 48 PageID 10
11 

receive the COVID-19 vaccine.” It further directs that, unless exempted, Active-Duty 

Airmen and Guardians must be fully vaccinated by November 2, 2021, and Ready Reserve, 

including National Guard, Airmen and Guardians must be fully vaccinated by December 

2, 2021. The Air Force COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate states that “[o]only COVID-19 

vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be 

utilized for mandatory vaccinations unless a military member volunteers to receive a 

vaccine that has obtained U.S. Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use 

Authorization or is included in the World Health Organization’s Emergency Use Listing.” 

36. Although Air Force policy states that medical commanders, commanding 

officers, and command surgeons will “ensure patients are evaluated for preexisting 

immunity” and states that “evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented 

infection, or similar circumstances” may be the basis for a medical exemption, AFI 48-110 

¶¶ 1-4, 2-6, the Air Force COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate states that “[i]ndividuals with 

previous COVID-19 infection or positive serology are not considered fully vaccinated and

are not exempt.” 

D. DoD and Air Force Regulations Recognize Religious and Medical 

Accommodations for Immunizations under RFRA and the Free Exercise 

Clause Generally. 

37. Department of Defense Instruction (“DODI”) 1300.17, Religious Liberty in 

the Military Services,5 dated September 1, 2020, establishes DoD policy in furtherance of 

5 Matthew P. Donovan, DoD Instruction 1300.17: Religious Liberty in the Military 

Services, OFF. UNDER SEC’Y DEF. PERS. READINESS (Sept. 1, 2020), 

https://tinyurl.com/4ym5zyfk (“DODI 1300.17”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 11 of 48 PageID 11
12 

RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States, recognizing that Service Members have the right to observe the tenets of 

their religion, or to observe no religion at all. DODI 1300.17 provides that it is DoD policy 

that “[s]ervice members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion or to observe 

no religion at all, as provided in this issuance.” DODI 1300.17 further provides that, “[i]n 

accordance with Section 533(a)(1) of Public Law 112-239, as amended, the DoD 

Components will accommodate individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs 

(conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) which do not have an adverse impact on 

military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or health and safety. A Service 

member’s expression of such beliefs may not, in so far as practicable, be used as the basis 

of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, 

training, or assignment.” 

38. DODI 1300.17 additionally provides that “[a]ccommodation includes 

excusing a Service member from an otherwise applicable military policy, practice, or duty. 

In accordance with RFRA, if such a military policy, practice, or duty substantially burdens 

a Service member’s exercise of religion, accommodation can only be denied if: (1) The 

military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. 

(2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 

39. Air Force Policy Directive (“AFPD”) 52-2, Accommodation of Religious 

Practices in the Air Force,6 dated July 28, 2020, implements DODI 1300.17 policy and 

6 Air Force Policy Directive 52-2: Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Air Force, 

SEC’Y OF THE AIR FORCE (July 28, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/ycx6kfv9 (“AFPD 52-2”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 12 of 48 PageID 12
13 

guidance for the accommodation of religious practices in the Department of the Air Force. 

AFPD 52-2 provides that the Air Force “will approve an individual request for 

accommodation unless the request would have a real (not theoretical) adverse impact on 

military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, or public health and safety,”7

 and 

that “any imposed limitations will employ the least restrictive means possible on 

expressions of sincerely held beliefs.”8

. The Directive further provides that “[a]n Airman's 

expression of sincerely held beliefs may not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel 

action, discrimination, or denial of promotion; and in so far as practicable, may not be used 

as a basis for making schooling, training, or assignment decisions.”9 Id. at 1.6. 

40. Department of the Air Force Instruction (“DAFI”) 52-201, Religious 

Freedom in the Department of the Air Force,10 dated June 23, 2021, implements AFPD 52-

2 and provides policy and guidance for the accommodation of religious practices in the 

Department of the Air Force. DAFI 52-201 reiterates that an “expression of sincerely held 

beliefs may not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or 

denial of promotion; and may not be used as a basis for making schooling, training, or 

assignment decisions.”11 It further provides that limitations imposed to achieve a 

compelling government interest must be the least restrictive means possible, which may 

7 Id. at § 1.4. 

8 Id. at § 1.3. 

9 Id. at § 1.6. 

10 Dep’t of Air Force Instruction 52-201: Religious Freedom in the Dep’t of the Air Force, 

Sec’y of the Air Force (June 23, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/5adecs59 (“DAFI 52-201”). 

11 Id. at § 1.3. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 13 of 48 PageID 13
14 

include “partial approval, approval with specified conditions, or other means that are less 

burdensome on the member's religious beliefs.”12 When accommodation is not possible, 

the Air Force may consider “reassignment, reclassification, or voluntary separation.”13 

E. Defendants’ Refusal to Grant Religious Exemptions and Retaliation 

Against Religious Exemption Requests Concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate 

41. Lieutenant Colonel Bryan P. Spence. Plaintiff Bryan P. Spence is a 

Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, currently serving as an F-16 Instructor Pilot at Naval 

Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth in Texas, who resides in Aledo, Texas. 

42. Lieutenant Colonel Spence submitted an RAR on October 12, 2021, based 

on his sincere religious beliefs, which prohibit him from receiving any vaccine which was 

tested or produced using aborted fetal cell lines. 

43. On October 20, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Spence’s commander informed 

him that noncompliance with immunization requirements could prevent Lieutenant 

Colonel Spence from being deployed, receiving assignments, or traveling internationally, 

and could lead to administrative consequences, such as Letters of Admonishment, Letters 

of Counseling, and Letters of Reprimand, which, if received, would detrimentally impact 

Lieutenant Colonel Spence’s career. Lieutenant Colonel Spence could also face nonjudicial 

punishment. 

12 Id. at § 2.4. 

13 Id. at § 2.7. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 14 of 48 PageID 14
15 

44. Lieutenant Colonel Spence may also be placed involuntarily into the 

Individual Ready Reserves, which would place him in a “no pay-no points” status. This 

would prevent him from completing his twentieth “Good Year” of military service and 

prevent him from receiving his retirement despite his 20 years of service in the Air Force. 

45. On December 6, 2021, the Commander of the 457th Fighter Squadron, to 

which Lieutenant Colonel Spence is attached, submitted a memorandum to the Surgeon 

General of the Air Force affirming that granting Lieutenant Colonel Spence’s RAR would 

have no impact on his ability to carry out his duties at his home station, and that granting 

his RAR would also have no impact on his ability to carry out his duties at a deployed 

location unless a COVID-19 vaccination was mandated for deployment. The Commander 

affirmed that, in the event that a COVID-19 vaccination were mandated for deployment, 

Lieutenant Colonel Spence would remain vital to mission accomplishment by remaining 

at his home station and training the second rotation pilots for deployment. Furthermore, he 

affirmed that granting Lieutenant Colonel Spence’s RAR would improve the overall 

readiness of the squadron due to a persistent shortage of fighter pilots. He also stated that 

there were less restrictive means of achieving the government’s interest than requiring 

COVID-19 vaccination, and that those means had been effective for the squadron for the 

preceding 19 months. 

46. The Air Force initially denied Lieutenant Colonel Spence’s RAR on 

December 1, 2021. Lieutenant Colonel Spence submitted an appeal to the DAF Surgeon 

General on December 8, 2021. That appeal remains pending, but Lieutenant Colonel 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 15 of 48 PageID 15
16 

Spence anticipates that a denial could be issued any day. Once it does, administrative 

consequences will swiftly follow. 

47. Lieutenant Colonel Spence has been and will continue to be adversely 

affected both personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious 

exemption to the Vaccine Mandate. 

48. Lieutenant Colonel Tyler W. Stef. Plaintiff Tyler W. Stef is a Lieutenant 

Colonel in the Air Force, currently stationed at Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, 

Texas. Lieutenant Colonel Stef was scheduled to complete Pilot Instructor Training at 

Sheppard, but he has been prohibited from completing that training due to his unvaccinated 

status. Now, instead of completing training that Lieutenant Colonel Stef has been 

scheduled to attend for over two years, he is performing scheduling duties which would 

normally be performed by an officer well below his rank. He does not even have a job title.

49. Although Lieutenant Colonel Stef received COVID-19 antibody test results, 

documenting that he has overwhelming antibodies to the COVID-19 virus, he cannot 

receive an exemption from the Vaccine Mandate based on his natural immunity. 

50. On September 8, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Stef, who was then stationed at 

Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, informed his Commander that he would seek an RAR to 

the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. His Commander stated he would support and recommend 

approval of the RAR. 

51. On September 15, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Stef’s commander informed him 

that noncompliance with immunization requirements could prevent Lieutenant Colonel 

Spence from being deployed, receiving assignments, or traveling internationally, and could 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 16 of 48 PageID 16
17 

lead to administrative consequences, such as Letters of Admonishment, Letters of 

Counseling, and Letters of Reprimand, which, if received, would detrimentally impact 

Lieutenant Colonel Stef’s career. Lieutenant Colonel Stef could also face nonjudicial 

punishment. 

52. On September 21, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Stef’s commander issued a 

memorandum for all review authorities determining that there was not a compelling 

government interest to disapprove Lieutenant Colonel Stef’s RAR and that there were less 

restrictive means available, such as mask wearing and social distancing. 

53. Lieutenant Colonel Stef submitted an RAR on September 22, 2021, based on 

his sincere religious beliefs, but after traveling to his current duty station at Sheppard Air 

Force Base in Texas, where he began Pilot Instructor Training at Sheppard to become 

qualified as an instructor pilot, he learned that the RAR was never processed. 

54. On October 20, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Stef was removed from Pilot 

Instructor Training and placed on Administrative Hold due to his unvaccinated status while 

seeking an exemption. 

55. On November 2, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Stef submitted his original RAR 

documents to his commander at Sheppard, and on November 7, 2021, he updated that RAR 

to include a memo requesting that he be exempt from all vaccines and medicines produced 

or developed using or containing fetal cell lines or mRNA technology, based on his sincere 

religious beliefs prohibiting him from receiving vaccines developed using aborted fetal cell 

lines or mRNA technology, which technology he believes usurps God’s creation of the 

human genome. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 17 of 48 PageID 17
18 

56. On February 9, 2022, the Air Force issued its initial denial of Lieutenant 

Colonel Stef’s RAR. Lieutenant Colonel Stef appealed the denial of his RAR on February 

14, 2022, and on March 21, 2022, that appeal was denied. 

57. Defendants have also pursued meritless disciplinary action against 

Lieutenant Colonel Stef for seeking a medical exemption to the vaccine mandate. Given 

Defendants’ pervasive discriminatory treatment of Lieutenant Colonel Stef and others who 

sought religious accommodations to the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, it appears this 

disciplinary action was motivated by a desire to take retaliatory action against Lieutenant 

Colonel Stef for seeking a religious accommodation. On information and belief, Plaintiffs 

allege that the disciplinary action was so motivated. 

58. Due to a history of severe adverse reactions to vaccines in his family, which 

has included the hospitalization of two of his daughters, Lieutenant Colonel Stef sought 

allergy testing from Dr. Alfred Johnson, a doctor whom other servicemembers had used 

for allergy testing. On January 14, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef received results showing 

he tested positive for having a reaction to polyethylene and polysorbate, which are 

ingredients in the COVID-19 vaccines. 

59. Based on those test results, the Air Force approved a 365-day medical 

exemption. Lieutenant Colonel Stef then scheduled his training to resume on February 8, 

2022. But on February 7, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef learned he had been grounded 

from flying and again placed on an Administrative Hold, with no explanation. 

60. On February 10, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef’s commander informed him 

that he was under a Commander Directed Investigation (“CDI”) alleging that he had 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 18 of 48 PageID 18
19 

feigned an allergy to the COVID-19 vaccine for the purpose of avoiding the vaccine 

mandate. These allegations are completely false. Lieutenant Colonel Stef had met with a 

licensed physician consulted by other servicemembers and whose services Lieutenant 

Colonel Stef understands have been covered for Reservists by a DoD insurance network. 

61. In February 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef met with a board-certified 

allergist, Dr. Matt Morgan, and received confirmatory test results again reflecting that he 

had a reaction to polyethylene and polysorbate. On March 23, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel 

Stef had a phone interview with an Air Force allergist to determine whether he had an 

allergy to the COVID-19 vaccines. Lieutenant Colonel Stef informed him about the 

confirmatory test results from Dr. Morgan, and the Air Force allergist asked him to submit 

those as part of his Air Force medical records. Lieutenant Colonel Stef did so on or about 

March 28, 2022. 

62. On March 28, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef was given heavily redacted 

results of the CDI. Those results stated that he submitted a false official statement by 

submitting a record of testing from Dr. Alfred Johnson, D.O.; attempted to disobey a lawful 

order to receive the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine; and committed an overt act by 

negligently feigning an allergy to components of the COVID-19 vaccine without proper 

medical testing or approval. Lieutenant Colonel Stef responded to the results of the CDI 

on April 11, 2022. 

63. On April 7, 2022, a military doctor confirmed that the confirmatory test 

results performed by Dr. Morgan were accomplished according to standard allergist care. 

Lieutenant Colonel Stef and the military doctor collectively decided to schedule 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 19 of 48 PageID 19
20 

confirmatory in-person allergy testing at a military medical facility in San Antonio for May 

12 and 13, 2022. 

64. On May 2, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef was given a Letter of 

Admonishment (“LOA”) from his wing commander for seeing Dr. Johnson for allergy 

testing; the Air Force now claims Dr. Johnson is illegitimate. The LOA claimed Lieutenant 

Colonel Stef had seen Dr. Johnson in an attempt to disobey the direct order to receive the 

COVID-19 vaccine. 

65. On May 11, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Stef took a third allergy test at a San 

Antonio military facility. While he had responses to polyethylene, the allergist there 

determined that he was not allergic and recommended he return the following day to 

receive the Pfizer vaccine with a 4-hour observation period post vaccine administration. 

66. On May 13, 2022, under extreme duress, Lieutenant Colonel Stef informed 

the San Antonio military allergist that he would consider receiving the Johnson & Johnson 

vaccine. Doing so would have violated his religious beliefs, but he felt he must do so to 

continue to provide for his family. 

67. Ultimately, Lieutenant Colonel Stef decided to stay true to his religious 

convictions and did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. He faces the threat of ongoing 

disciplinary action due to that decision. 

68. Lieutenant Colonel Stef has been and will continue to be adversely affected 

both personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious 

exemption to the Vaccine Mandate. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 20 of 48 PageID 20
21 

69. Major Ryan Corcoran. Plaintiff Ryan Corcoran is a Major in the Air Force, 

currently serving as Individual Mobilization Augmentee to the Deputy Chief Regional 

Analysis Branch assigned to the Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. 

70. From March 2020 until most recently, Major Corcoran’s job duties included 

classified intelligence review and providing analysis to his command. His assigned duty 

station has remained Ramstein Air Force Base, and he has performed his duties remotely 

from Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas in order to support his assigned unit’s 

mission. 

71. On October 24, 2021, Major Corcoran submitted an RAR to be exempted 

from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement. 

72. In his RAR, Major Corcoran explained his sincerely held religious objection 

to receiving medication that was developed with the aid of aborted fetal cells. He explained 

his sincere belief that his body is a temple to the Lord, and that he must refrain from 

injecting substances into it that might compromise his body. 

73. On March 2, 2022, Major Corcoran received the initial denial of his RAR. 

74. Major Corcoran’s commander has indicated that the Air Force will process a 

Letter of Reprimand against him and that it will be delivered to his file soon. This could 

have a detrimental effect on both his career and retirement. 

75. Major Corcoran has been and will continue to be adversely affected both 

personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious exemption to 

the Vaccine Mandate. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 21 of 48 PageID 21
22 

76. Lieutenant Mitchell B. Pike. Plaintiff Mitchell B. Pike is a First Lieutenant 

in the Air Force, currently serving as an F-16 Fighter Pilot stationed at Holloman Air Force 

Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

77. After completing his F-16 initial qualification training in September 2022, 

he will be joining his home reserve unit at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Fort 

Worth, Texas for permanent duty. 

78. On October 12, 2021, Lieutenant Pike submitted an RAR to be exempted 

from the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement. In his RAR, he explained that 1) he 

is a Christian, 2) abortion conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs, 3) he believes 

his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and 4) abstaining from the COVID vaccination 

prevents evil from entering his life. He is willing to comply with less burdensome and less 

restrictive protective measures than taking the COVID-19 vaccine. He is open to any

number of accommodations, including testing and masking. 

79. On October 14, 2021, he was counseled by his commander that 

noncompliance with immunization requirements would preclude me from attending F-16 

initial qualification training. However, nearly three months later, he was able to initially 

participate in the training due to a 365-day medical exemption he received in January of 

2022 for being allergic to two ingredients that are present in the COVID-19 vaccines. 

80. As a result, he participated in initial qualification training until April 6, 2022. 

At that time, his training manager informed him that he had to call the immunology 

department at Lackland Joint Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, about the validity of 

his medical exemption due to a vaccine allergy. When he spoke with that department, he 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 22 of 48 PageID 22
23 

was told that the allergy test he received was insufficient and that his medical exemption 

was being revoked. 

81. Lieutenant Pike received the initial denial of his RAR on January 7, 2022. 

82. Lieutenant Pike received his medical exemption on January 10, 2022, which 

was three days after his RAR was denied. Because he received his medical exemption 

around the same time his RAR was denied, his training manager told him that he could 

enter initial qualification training without submitting his RAR appeal. 

83. After his medical exemption was pulled and he was removed from initial 

qualification training, Lieutenant Pike submitted his appeal to the Air Force Surgeon 

General on April 6, 2022. 

84. On May 18, 2022, he received official notice via telephone that his appeal 

was denied. He was given five days to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. 

85. Because Lieutenant Pike did not get vaccinated by the close of business on 

Monday, May 23, 2022, he will soon receive adverse administrative action and could 

receive nonjudicial punishment after that. He expects to receive an LOR for not getting 

vaccinated because another student at Holloman received an LOR for refusing vaccination. 

Any administrative action or nonjudicial punishment will undoubtedly have a harmful 

effect on his career. To start, he has wanted to be an Air Force pilot since he was five years 

old. His father was an Air Force pilot, and he has always wanted to follow in his footsteps. 

He is currently three years into his training. However, last year, he had an episode of kidney 

stones and received a rare waiver that allows him to continue flying. That waiver expires 

in November of 2024. Every day that he does not train threatens his ability to become a 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 23 of 48 PageID 23
24 

fighter pilot. If that waiver expires without his training being complete, then he may never 

be able to complete my path to becoming a fighter pilot. There is no amount of money that 

can rectify that situation, and the substantial likelihood of that harm increases with each 

day. 

86. Lieutenant Pike has been and will continue to be adversely affected both 

personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious exemption to 

the Vaccine Mandate. 

87. Major Steven R. Haynes. Plaintiff Steven R. Haynes is a Major in the Air 

Force, currently serving as an Assistant Flight Commander/Instructor Pilot assigned to the 

5th Flying Training Squadron at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, Oklahoma. 

88. On October 12, 2021, Major Haynes submitted an RAR to be exempted from 

the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement. In this request, he explained his belief 

that the COVID-19 vaccines contain unclean things forbidden by God, and he believes that 

receiving the COVID-19 vaccines would violate his body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. 

89. As a requirement of the RAR process, on September 8, 2021, and October 4, 

2021, he was interviewed by the Vance Air Force Base chaplain regarding his sincerely

held religious beliefs. On October 4, 2021, the chaplain determined that his religious beliefs 

were sincere and that his beliefs would be substantially burdened if he was required to take 

a COVID-19 vaccine.

90. As an additional requirement of the RAR process, on September 29, 2021, 

Major Haynes was counseled by Major Alyssa Turner, USAF, NC, Aeromedical Nurse 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 24 of 48 PageID 24
25 

Practitioner, Vance Air Force Base, about the risks of not being vaccinated and becoming 

ill with COVID-19. 

91. Currently, Major Haynes expects a Letter of Reprimand any day for not 

receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The Letter of Reprimand will likely have a negative 

impact on his record that is likely to go before a Promotion Board in June for consideration 

of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. If Major Haynes were to receive a Letter of Reprimand 

at this time, an Unfavorable Information File would be established within his official record 

containing the Letter of Reprimand, and he most likely will not be promoted. 

92. Since declining to receive the vaccine, Major Haynes has been suspended 

from aviation and his role as an Instructor Pilot. 

93. Major Haynes received the initial denial of his RAR on January 9, 2022. 

94. On January 14, 2022, he submitted his appeal to the DAF Surgeon General. 

In his appeal, he explained that he has personally recovered from the SARS-COV-2 virus 

(a mild case with no lasting effects), as evidenced by two serological tests taken one year 

apart, dated October 20, 2020 and October 12, 2021.

95. On March 31, 2022, his appeal was denied. On April 15, 2022, Lieutenant 

Colonel Marcus D. Hutson, Commander 5th Flying Training Squadron, ordered him to 

receive an initial dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and provide proof of same by April 20, 

2022. 

96. As a result of not taking the vaccine, on April 21, 2022, Major Haynes was 

suspended from aviation service and his flight incentive pay and duties were suspended. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 25 of 48 PageID 25
26 

97. Major Haynes has been and will continue to be adversely affected both 

personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious exemption to 

the Vaccine Mandate. 

98. Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Grieb. Plaintiff Andrew Grieb is a Lieutenant 

Colonel in the Air Force, currently serving as a T-6 Instructor/Evaluator Pilot in the 5th 

Flight Training Squadron at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, Oklahoma. 

99. On October 1, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Grieb submitted an RAR to be 

exempted from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement. In his RAR, he explained that he is a 

Christian and a member of the Roman Catholic Church, that he believes his body is a 

temple to the Holy Spirit, that life is sacred at all stages (starting at conception), and that 

using a vaccine that was tested using aborted fetal cells is repugnant to his religion. 

100. As a requirement of the RAR process, on October 13, 2021, he was 

interviewed by the Vance Air Force base chaplain regarding his sincerely held religious 

beliefs. On October 14, 2021, the chaplain determined that his religious beliefs were 

sincere and that his beliefs would be substantially burdened if he was required to take a 

COVID-19 vaccine. 

101. On October 1, 2021, he was counseled by his commander, and his 

commander’s memorandum stated that, “...noncompliance with immunization 

requirements may adversely affect assignment, international travel, or result in other 

administrative consequences.” “Administrative consequences” include written counseling 

and administrative separation, which, if received, would detrimentally impact his career. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 26 of 48 PageID 26
27 

Noncompliance could also result in nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

102. On January 13, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Grieb received an initial denial 

Memorandum stating that Lieutenant General Scobee, the Air Force Reserve Command 

Commander had denied his RAR and that he had until January 15, 2022 to appeal or receive 

his vaccination within 5 days. 

103. Lieutenant Colonel Grieb appealed the initial denial on January 15, 2022. 

104. After he submitted his appeal, there have been increases in restrictions to the 

duty he is allowed to perform. As of March 2022, unvaccinated members of his squadron 

are no longer allowed to perform temporary duty assignments, despite the fact that they 

have been traveling off station to accomplish necessary training flight operations for the 

past 24 months without issue. 

105. As of March 22, 2022, extended Active-Duty Orders for unvaccinated 

reservists have been severely limited in Lieutenant Colonel Grieb’s squadron. He is no 

longer being permitted to serve on additional active-duty tours of over 30 days due to his 

unvaccinated status, which is discriminatory treatment because orders longer than 30 days 

include additional special pays and benefits that he will not receive if he performs duty for 

29 days. 

106. On April 28, 2022, Lieutenant Colonel Grieb’s appeal was denied, and he 

was given until May 3, 2022, to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. 

107. Without immediate relief, he is facing an imminent issuance of an LOR, 

which will negatively impact his discharge characterization. The stress, mental, and 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 27 of 48 PageID 27
28 

emotional harm to his family increases every day. And being forced to choose between 

tarnishing his nearly two-and-a-half-decade career or violating his sincerely held religious 

beliefs in order to provide for his family is a harm that cannot be repaired with money. 

108. Lieutenant Colonel Grieb has been and will continue to be adversely affected 

both personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious 

exemption to the Vaccine Mandate. 

109. Major Danielle A. Runyan. Plaintiff Danielle A. Runyan is a Major in the Air 

Force, currently serving as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate to 8th Air Force in Louisiana. 

110. Her place of civilian employment is in Texas, and she will become a Texas 

resident in June 2022. 

111. On October 28, 2021, Major Runyan submitted an RAR to be exempted from 

the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement. In her RAR, she explained that she had a 

sincerely held religious belief that would be substantially burdened by taking the COVID19 vaccine. 

112. On November 1, 2021, she was counseled by her supervisor that 

noncompliance with immunization requirements may adversely affect readiness for 

deployment, assignment, international travel, or result in other administrative 

consequences. “Administrative consequences” include written counseling and 

administrative separation, which, if received, would detrimentally impact her career. 

Noncompliance could also result in nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is where the commander offers to issue a service 

member punishment subject to the member’s consent to be tried exclusively by the 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 28 of 48 PageID 28
29 

commander. As part of this process, alternatively, the member could turn down this offer 

and elect to be tried by court-martial. 

113. Since Major Runyan received the initial denial of her RAR on April 29, 2022, 

and submitted her appeal on May 4, 2022, several adverse actions, such as administrative 

separation and reduced pay, could happen within a matter of days. Pursuant to Department 

of the Air Force Instruction 52-201, Religious Freedom in the Department of the Air Force, 

dated June 23, 2021, paragraph 2.10, she expects to receive her appeal denial no later than 

June 10, 2022. That paragraph specifically states that “[a]ppeal of a disapproved religious 

accommodation request must be resolved no later than 30 business days following the 

member’s written notification of intent to appeal to the next higher decision authority in 

the chain of command.” 

114. On Friday, April 29, 2022, Major Runyan’s supervisor told her that her 

appeal of the initial denial of a religious exemption was denied. She was also issued an 

April 29, 2022, order requiring her to either get vaccinated within five days or appeal the 

initial denial of her RAR. Major Runyan submitted an appeal on May 4, 2022. 

115. Without judicial intervention, Major Runyan’s career will be over once she 

receives administrative action, which could happen in a matter of days. She will lose the 

opportunity to promote to the next rank and will be a less than desirable option for many 

high-level follow-on assignments. 

116. Major Runyan has been and will continue to be adversely affected both 

personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant her a religious exemption to 

the Vaccine Mandate. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 29 of 48 PageID 29
30 

117. Lieutenant Colonel Christopher M. Wu. Plaintiff Christopher M. Wu is a 

Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, currently serving as Deputy Chief of the Commercial 

Litigation Field Support Center at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. 

118. Lieutenant Colonel Wu submitted an RAR on September 28, 2021, based on 

his sincere religious beliefs, which prohibit him from receiving any of the currently 

available COVID-19 vaccines because they were tested or produced using aborted fetal 

cell lines. 

119. On October 5, 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Wu’s commander informed him that 

noncompliance with immunization requirements could prevent Lieutenant Colonel Wu 

from being deployed, receiving assignments, or traveling internationally, and could lead to 

administrative consequences, such as administrative separation and nonjudicial 

punishment, which could result in loss of pay, reprimand, arrest in quarters, and restriction 

of liberty. 

120. In December 2021, while his RAR was pending, the Air Force notified 

Lieutenant Colonel Wu that he had been competitively selected to be the Staff Judge 

Advocate at Patrick Space Force Base, Florida. That assignment was publicized to the 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps when the Judge Advocate assignment list was published 

on February 17, 2022, and Lieutenant Colonel Wu received official notification of the 

assignment through the Air Force personnel system on April 5, 2022. 

121. On April 21, 2022, the Air Force canceled Lieutenant Colonel Wu’s 

assignment to be the Staff Judge Advocate at Patrick Space Force Base because of his 

pending RAR. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 30 of 48 PageID 30
31 

122. The Air Force initially denied Lieutenant Colonel Wu’s RAR on April 28, 

2022. Lieutenant Colonel Wu submitted an appeal to the DAF Surgeon General on May 5, 

2022. That appeal remains pending. 

123. Lieutenant Colonel Wu has been and will continue to be adversely affected 

both personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious 

exemption to the Vaccine Mandate. 

124. Captain Alan Sosebee. Plaintiff Alan Sosebee is a Captain in the Air Force, 

currently serving as Chief of Training for the 306th Flying Training Group at the United 

States Air Force Academy in Colorado. 

125. Captain Sosebee submitted an RAR on October 29, 2021, based on his 

sincere religious beliefs, which prohibit him from receiving any of the currently available 

COVID-19 vaccines because they were tested or produced using aborted fetal cell lines. 

126. Captain Sosebee received the initial denial of his RAR on March 8, 2021. He 

appealed that decision on March 11, 2022. 

127. Captain Sosebee was fired from his position in the USAFA/Cadet Wing 

because of his decision to appeal the RAR denial. 

128. His appeal was denied on April 8, 2022, and he was given five days to receive 

a COVID-19 vaccine, apply for voluntary separation, or face mandatory disciplinary 

action, which would include a mandatory discharge process. 

129. Captain Sosebee received a Letter of Reprimand on April 28, 2022, for 

refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 31 of 48 PageID 31
32 

130. Captain Sosebee has been and will continue to be adversely affected both 

personally and professionally by Defendants’ refusal to grant him a religious exemption to 

the Vaccine Mandate. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

131. This lawsuit is brought as a class action to redress Defendants’ violations of 

the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 on 

behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and members of a class of all members of the United States 

Air Force who are subject to the Air Force's COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate and who have 

submitted an RAR concerning the Air Force's COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. 

132. This lawsuit is properly maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a) and 

Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subclasses may be added later as 

necessary or appropriate. 

A. Rule 23(a) 

Numerosity 

128. The exact number of members of the class is not precisely known, but there 

are currently over 7,608 members of the United States Air Force who have submitted RARs 

concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.

14 Because of the large number 

of class members, joinder of individual class members is impracticable. 

14 Sec’y of A.F. Pub. Affairs, DAF COVID-19 Statistics – March 2022, Dep’t of A.F. (Mar. 

29, 2022), https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2959594/daf-covid-19-

statistics-march-2022/. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 32 of 48 PageID 32
33 

Commonality 

129. Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to 

violations of the legal rights sought to be enforced uniformly by Named Plaintiffs and the 

class members. Similar or identical constitutional and statutory violations, policies and 

practices, and harm are prevalent across the class. The harm sustained by class members 

flows in each instance from a common nucleus of operative fact: Defendants’ policies or 

practices of across-the-board denial of all RARs, the Air Force’s failure to conduct 

individualized assessments of RARs, and the Air Force’s policy or practice of taking 

adverse action against class members who submit RARs to the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate. Each instance of harm suffered by Named Plaintiffs and the class members has 

directly resulted from a common course of illegal conduct. Thus, individual questions, if 

any, pale in comparison to the numerous common questions of fact and law presented in 

this lawsuit. 

130. Determination of the following common questions of fact will resolve in one 

stroke the following issues that are central to the validity of each one of the individual class 

member’s claims: 

a. Whether the Air Force has a policy or practice of denying all RARs 

concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate; 

b. Whether the Air Force has a policy or practice of not conducting an 

individualized assessment of all RARs concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate; 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 33 of 48 PageID 33
34 

c. Whether the Air Force has a policy or practice of taking adverse action 

against servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate; 

d. Whether the Air Force has a policy or practice of coercing compliance with 

the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate by threatening or taking adverse action against 

servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate;

and 

e. Whether the Air Force has a policy or practice of taking adverse action 

against servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate, but not servicemembers who submit a request for a medical 

accommodation or medical exemption concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate. 

131. Determination of the following common questions of law will resolve the 

following legal issues that are central to the validity of each one of the individual class 

member’s claims: 

a. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of denying substantially all RARs 

concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate means that members of 

the Air Force Class have been and are being deprived of their right to the Free 

Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution; 

b. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of denying substantially all RARs 

concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate means that members of 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 34 of 48 PageID 34
35 

the Air Force Class have been and are being deprived of their rights under the 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993; 

c. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of not conducting an 

individualized assessment of all RARs concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 

Vaccine Mandate means that members of the Air Force Class have been and are 

being deprived of their right to the Free Exercise of Religion under the First 

Amendment to the United States Constitution; 

d. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of not conducting an 

individualized assessment of all RARs concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 

Vaccine Mandate means that members of the Air Force Class have been and are 

being deprived of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 

1993; 

e. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of taking adverse action against 

servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

means that members of the Air Force Class have been and are being deprived of 

the Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution; 

f. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of taking adverse action against 

servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 

Vaccine Mandate means that members of the Air Force Class have been and are 

being deprived of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 

1993; 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 35 of 48 PageID 35
36 

g. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of coercing compliance with the 

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate by threatening or taking adverse action against

servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 

Vaccine Mandate means that members of the Air Force Class have been and are 

being deprived of the Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment to 

the United States Constitution;

h. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of coercing compliance with the 

Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate by threatening or taking adverse action 

against servicemembers who submit RARs concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate means that members of the Air Force Class have been and are being 

deprived of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993; 

and 

i. Whether the Air Force’s policy or practice of taking adverse action if a class 

member submits an RAR concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine 

Mandate, but not if a member submits a request for a medical exemption 

concerning the Air Force’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate, means that members of 

the Air Force Class have been and are being deprived of their right to the Free 

Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

Typicality 

132. The claims alleged by the Named Plaintiffs and the resultant harms are 

typical of the claims of each member of the proposed class. Typicality exists because all 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 36 of 48 PageID 36
37 

absent class members have been injured, or are at risk of injury, as a result of the same 

policies or practices. 

Adequacy

133. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class. There are no conflicts of interest between the Named Plaintiffs and the other class 

members. 

134. The Named Plaintiffs have retained counsel with extensive experience 

litigating complex class action lawsuits in federal court. Named Plaintiffs’ counsel have 

committed sufficient resources to represent the class. Named Plaintiffs’ counsel therefore 

are well suited to fairly and adequately represent the class’s interests. 

B. Rule 23(b)(2) 

135. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

class, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief for the class. Named Plaintiffs’ counsel 

know of no conflicts among the class members. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I

Violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to the Free Exercise of Religion 

U.S. Const. amend. I 

136. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the 

foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 37 of 48 PageID 37
38 

137. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from 

enacting or enforcing non-neutral and non-generally applicable laws or policies unless they 

are narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. 

138. The original public meaning of the Free Exercise Clause is that the 

government may not burden a sincerely held religious belief unless the government can 

demonstrate a compelling interest and that the law or policy burdening religious exercise 

is the least restrictive means to achieve that compelling interest. 

139. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit their receipt of 

presently available COVID-19 vaccines. 

140. Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ 

sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 

vaccine) that would violate those religious beliefs, or suffer adverse employment action 

and financial harm, among other harms. 

136. The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial 

(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, 

removal from promotion lists and assignments, inability to attend certain military training 

and education schools, removal from assigned job duties, inability to retire in good 

standing, loss of special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, involuntary placement 

into the Individual Ready Reserve without access to military benefits, recoupment of 

money spent training the service member, and loss of leave and travel privileges for both 

official and unofficial purposes. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 38 of 48 PageID 38
39 

141. Multiple Plaintiffs received a record of individual counseling stating that 

noncompliance with immunization requirements may adversely affect deployment, 

assignment, or international travel, or result in other administrative consequences. 

142. Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates are not a neutral and generally 

applicable law or policy. “A law is not generally applicable if it ‘invite[s]’ the government 

to consider the particular reasons for a person’s conduct by providing ‘a mechanism for 

individualized exemptions.’” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021) 

(quoting Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 884 (1990)). Indeed, 

the creation of such a system “invites the government to decide which reasons for not 

complying with the policy are worthy of solicitude.” Id. at 1879. And “where the State has 

in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases 

of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Id. at 1877.

143. The policy vests DoD and Air Force decisionmakers with the discretion to 

give individual exemptions to the mandates for medical and administrative reasons and to 

exempt service members already participating in COVID-19 vaccine trials, regardless of 

whether those medical trials provide those service members with any protection from 

infection or serious illness from COVID- 19. 

144. The Air Force has granted over 1800 medical and administrative exemptions, 

but only 81 RARs out of 11,877 requests. Sec’y of A.F. Pub. Affairs, DAF COVID-19 

Statistics – May 2022, Dep’t of A.F. (May 17, 2022), https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/Article/3018445/daf-covid-19-statistics-may-17-2022/. The Air Force admitted in 

a preliminary injunction hearing that all granted RARs were given to servicemembers who 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 39 of 48 PageID 39
40 

were already exiting the Air Force. Kristina Wong, Exclusive: Air Force Admits All 

Granted Religious Accommodations for Vax Were for Airmen Already Leaving Service, 

Breitbart (May 10, 2022), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/10/exclusive-airforce-admits-all-granted-religious-accommodations-for-vax-were-for-airmen-alreadyleaving-service/. 

145. Plaintiffs are aware of unvaccinated individuals with medical exemptions 

who have been permitted to carry out the same duties Plaintiffs have not been allowed to 

perform due to their unvaccinated status and RARs. 

146. Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates fail strict scrutiny. 

147. Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring 

Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine, as 

shown by: Defendants’ across-the-board exemption for vaccine trial participants and grant 

of over 1800 medical and administrative exemptions; the Air Force’s 97% against COVID19; and Defendants’ months-long delay in announcing—and even further delay in 

implementing—their Vaccine Mandates following the December 2020 availability of 

COVID-19 vaccines. 

148. Applying Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates to Plaintiffs also is not 

the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government’s purported interest because 

DoD operated for over a year and a half during the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and 

healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated. 

149. Moreover, Defendants possess multiple less restrictive methods of mitigating 

the spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical distancing, and 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 40 of 48 PageID 40
41 

regular testing—all methods that Defendants successfully employed before announcement 

and enforcement of their Vaccine Mandates. Defendants also now have available a growing 

list of treatment options that, like the COVID-19 vaccine, substantially reduce severe 

symptoms that may accompany COVID-19 infection. The government has authorized 

various treatments for hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID patients,

15 and has 

authorized at least one oral antiviral for COVID-19 treatment.16

150. Indeed, if Defendants are truly concerned about COVID-19 affecting its 

personnel, they would need to implement these other mitigation protocols even if service 

members receive the vaccine, because vaccinated personnel can also carry, transmit, and 

become sick with COVID-19. Science Brief: COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccination, Ctrs. 

for Disease Control & Prevention (last updated Sept. 15, 2021), 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinatedpeople.html. 

151. Accordingly, Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ 

rights to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. 

15 Possible Treatment Options for COVID-19, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. (last 

accessed May 26, 2022), https://combatcovid.hhs.gov/possible-treatment-options-covid19; Know Your Treatment Options for COVID-19, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (last accessed 

May 26, 2022), https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/know-your-treatmentoptions-covid-19. 

16 See FDA News Release, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes First 

Oral Antiviral for Treatment of COVID-19, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (Dec. 22, 2021), 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-updatefda-authorizes-first-oral-antiviral-treatment-covid-19. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 41 of 48 PageID 41
42 

152. Because of Defendants’ policies and practices, Plaintiffs have suffered and 

continue to suffer irreparable harm. They are entitled to equitable relief. 

153. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their First 

Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and an injunction against Defendants’ illegal 

policies and practices. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable costs of this 

lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II 

Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.

154. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the allegations contained in the 

foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 

155. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.

(“RFRA”), states that the “[g]overnment 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. 

156. The act broadly defines the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of 

religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000bb-2(4) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A)). 

157. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court held that the exercise 

of religion involves “not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention 

from) physical acts that are engaged in for religious reasons.” 573 U.S. 682, 710 (2014) 

(citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 877). 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 42 of 48 PageID 42
43 

158. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that courts may not question whether 

sincerely held religious beliefs are reasonable. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 724. 

159. RFRA imposes strict scrutiny on all actions of the federal government that 

“substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). 

160. DODI 1300.17 explicitly recognizes RFRA protections for Department of 

Defense members. 

161. Unless the government satisfies the compelling interest test by 

“demonstrat[ing] that [the] application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance 

of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering 

that compelling governmental interest,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), a governmental act that 

places a substantial burden on free exercise violates RFRA. 

162. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit their receipt of 

presently available COVID-19 vaccines. 

163. Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates substantially burden Plaintiffs’ 

sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them to take an action (receiving a COVID-19 

vaccine) that would violate those religious beliefs, or suffer adverse employment action, 

financial harm, and potential physical harm. 

164. The adverse actions to which Plaintiffs are subject may include: court-martial 

(criminal) prosecution, involuntary separation, relief for cause from leadership positions, 

removal from promotion lists, inability to attend certain military training and education 

schools, loss of special pay, placement in a non-deployable status, recoupment of money 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 43 of 48 PageID 43
44 

spent training the service member, and loss of leave and travel privileges for both official 

and unofficial purposes. 

165. Multiple Plaintiffs received a record of individual counseling stating that 

noncompliance with immunization requirements may adversely affect deployment, 

assignment, international travel, or result in other administrative consequences. 

166. Many Plaintiffs have already suffered and continue to suffer adverse 

employment actions merely for requesting relief that is protected by RFRA. 

167. Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates fail strict scrutiny. 

168. Defendants do not have a compelling government interest in requiring 

Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by taking a COVID-19 vaccine, as 

shown by: Defendants’ across-the-board exemption for vaccine trial participants and grant 

of over 1800 medical and administrative exemptions; the Air Force’s 97% rate of 

vaccination against COVID-19; and Defendants’ months-long delay in announcing—and 

even further delay in implementing—their Vaccine Mandates following the December 

2020 availability of COVID-19 vaccines. 

169. Applying Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates to Plaintiffs also is not 

the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government’s purported interest because 

DoD operated for over a year and a half during the COVID-19 pandemic with a ready and 

healthy force that had not been fully vaccinated. 

170. Moreover, Defendants possess multiple lesser restrictive methods of 

mitigating the spread of COVID-19, including masking, remote teleworking, physical 

distancing, and regular testing—all methods that Defendants successfully employed before 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 44 of 48 PageID 44
45 

announcement and enforcement of their Vaccine Mandates. Defendants also now have 

available a growing list of treatment options that, like the COVID-19 vaccine, substantially 

reduce severe symptoms that may accompany COVID-19 infection. The government has 

authorized various treatments for hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID patients,17 and 

has authorized at least one oral antiviral for COVID-19 treatment.18 

171. Indeed, if Defendants are truly concerned about COVID-19 affecting its 

personnel, they would need to implement these other mitigation protocols even if service 

members receive the vaccine, because vaccinated personnel can also carry, transmit, and 

become sick with COVID-19. Science Brief: COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccination, Ctrs. 

for Disease Control & Prevention (last updated Sept. 15, 2021), 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinatedpeople.html. 

172. Accordingly, Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ 

rights under RFRA. 

173. Because of Defendants’ policies and practices, Plaintiffs have suffered, and 

continue to suffer, irreparable harm. They are entitled to equitable relief. 

17 Possible Treatment Options for COVID-19, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. (last 

accessed May 26, 2022), https://combatcovid.hhs.gov/possible-treatment-options-covid19; Know Your Treatment Options for COVID-19, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (last 

accessed May 26, 2022), https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/know-yourtreatment-options-covid-19. 

18 See FDA News Release, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes First 

Oral Antiviral for Treatment of COVID-19, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. (Dec. 22, 2021), 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-updatefda-authorizes-first-oral-antiviral-treatment-covid-19.

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 45 of 48 PageID 45
46 

174. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their rights 

under RFRA and an injunction against Defendants’ illegal policies and practices. 

Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including their 

reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

NOW THEREFORE, having fully stated their claims against the Defendants, 

Plaintiffs pray that this Court would award them relief as follows: 

a. Certification of this action as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 23(a) and (b); 

b. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

violates Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ rights under the First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution; 

c. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

violates Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ rights under the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act; 

d. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Defendants 

and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons and entities directly or 

indirectly in active concert or participation with them that prohibits them from making nonreceipt of COVID-19 vaccination or submission of a request for a religious accommodation 

from COVID-19 vaccination a basis for any adverse action against any servicemembers 

including, but not limited to: administrative counselings, admonishments, or reprimands; 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 46 of 48 PageID 46
47 

nonjudicial punishment or separation from service; involuntary placement in the Individual 

Ready Reserve; change in job titles or duties, removal from assignments, or non-issuance 

of assignments; negative performance reviews, promotion recommendations, or 

stratifications; giving a less than honorable discharge; recoupment of education or training 

expenses; determination of medical disqualification or non-deployability; loss or delay of 

promotion, training opportunities, or retirement; loss of bonuses, pay or benefits; or 

precluding servicemembers from traveling to and performing duty in person, unless 

Defendants can prove that failing to take a particular adverse action against the 

servicemember in question would likely have a real and concrete (not theoretical) adverse 

impact on a compelling government interest. 

e. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and other costs and 

disbursements in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 

f. All other relief under law or equity that the Court deems just, proper, and 

equitable. 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 47 of 48 PageID 47
48 

May 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Cristina M. Squiers 

Gene C. Schaerr* 

D.C. Bar No. 416368

Cristina M. Squiers 

 Texas Bar No. 24093764 

 Counsel of Record 

Annika M. Boone* ** 

 Utah Bar No. 17176 

SCHAERR |JAFFE LLP

1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 787-1060 

Facsimile: (202) 776-0136 

gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com

csquiers@schaerr-jaffe.com

aboone@schaerr-jaffe.com 

* Pro hac vice motions forthcoming

** Not yet admitted in D.C. Practicing

under the supervision of D.C. attorneys.

Kelly J. Shackelford 

 Texas Bar No. 18070950 

Jeffrey C. Mateer

 Texas Bar No. 13185320 

David J. Hacker

 Texas Bar No. 24103323 

Michael D. Berry 

 Texas Bar No. 24085835 

Roger Byron 

 Texas Bar No. 24062643 

First Liberty Institute 

2001 W. Plano Pkwy., Ste. 1600 

Plano, Texas 75075 

Tel: (972) 941-4444 

jmateer@firstliberty.org 

dhacker@firstliberty.org 

mberry@firstliberty.org 

rbyron@firstliberty.org 

Jordan E. Pratt* 

 Florida Bar No. 100958 

227 Pennsylvania Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

(972) 941-4444

jpratt@firstliberty.org

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 48 of 48 PageID 48