1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ERIC JACKSON, ALARIC STONE, and )

MICHAEL MARCENELLE, on behalf of ) 

themselves and all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) Case No. 4:22-cv-00825-P 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

v. ) 

 )

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, in his official ) 

capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Plaintiffs hereby give notice of a decision issued yesterday by Judge James Wesley 

Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas, in Schelske v. Austin, No. 6:22-cv-0049-H (N.D. Tex. 

Dec. 21, 2022) (attached hereto), that is directly relevant to this case and the pending motions for 

injunctive and class-wide relief (ECF No. 4). 

In Schelske, Judge Hendrix issued a preliminary injunction under the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act, preventing the Army from “taking or continuing any disciplinary, punitive, or 

separation measures” against the named plaintiffs on the basis of their COVID-19 vaccination 

status. Id. at 63. Judge Hendrix has not yet decided to issue a class-wide injunction because 

there, unlike here, the briefing on the motions for class-wide relief “is not yet ripe.” Id. at 23 n.8. 

By contrast, in this case, the motions for class-wide relief have been fully briefed since October 

14, 2022. 

The enjoined Army vaccination mandate is identical to the challenged Coast Guard 

mandate at issue in this case. Judge Hendrix’s decision is on point and, like the Sixth Circuit’s 

recent decision in Doster v. Kendall, 54 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2022) (see ECF No. 48-1), supports 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 52 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1219
2 

Plaintiffs’ position in this case on numerous issues including justiciability, exhaustion, and 

ripeness (Schelske at 24-41), strict scrutiny (id. at 41-43), the military’s lack of compelling 

interest (id. at 44-54), the military’s failure to satisfy the least restrictive means test (id. at 54-

59), the military’s groundless claim to deference under RFRA (id. at 49-50), and irreparable 

harm and public interest (id. at 59-62). 

Judge Hendrix also recognized that while the pending National Defense Authorization 

Act (“NDAA”) bill if signed into law by the President could partially moot the litigation insofar 

as it requires the Secretary of Defense to rescind the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, “the Army has 

refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any 

agreement that this Court can enforce,” and “there is no real indication that separations will 

cease.” (Id. at 3.) The same is true here, as the Coast Guard has repeatedly refused to commit to 

staying separation proceedings for all putative members of Plaintiffs’ proposed class. Moreover, 

as Plaintiffs have explained (ECF No. 50 at 2 n.1), the relevant NDAA provision does not even 

apply to the Coast Guard; the Department of Defense mandate may remain in place for up to 30 

days after the NDAA’s enactment; and, as Judge Hendrix put it, “there is no real indication that 

separations will cease.” 

Currently, five military services are variously enjoined from enforcing their respective 

COVID-19 vaccination mandates against religious objectors, with two such injunctions issuing 

from the Northern District of Texas. See, e.g., Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, 594 F. Supp.3d 767 

(N.D. Tex. 2022) (class-wide injunction against the Navy); Doster v. Kendall, No. 1:22-CV00084-MWM, 2022 WL 2974733 (S.D. Ohio July 27, 2022), aff’d 54 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2022) 

(class-wide injunction against the Air Force and Space Force); Col. Fin. Mgmt. Officer v. Austin, 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 52 Filed 12/22/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1220
3 

No. 8:22-CV-1275-SDM-TGW, 2022 WL 3643512 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022) (class-wide 

injunction against the Marine Corps); Schelske (named plaintiffs’ injunction against the Army). 

The Coast Guard now stands alone as the only military service with entirely free reign to 

punish and separate religious service members based on vaccination status. And the Coast Guard 

continues to do so. Moreover, to counsel’s knowledge, this case presents the best if not the only 

opportunity nationwide for Coast Guard service members to obtain class-wide injunctive relief at 

this time. See Bazzrea v. Mayorkas, No. 3:22-cv-00265 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2022) (staying case 

until January 13, 2023; no motion for class-wide injunctive relief has been filed); Pilot v. Austin, 

No. 8:22-cv-01278 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2022) (canceling court-ordered mediation following 

plaintiffs’ request to delay the mediation to at least February 2023). 

Plaintiffs and the 1,200+ putative class members urgently need the same relief that their 

fellow service members in other branches have already received. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 52 Filed 12/22/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1221
4 

Dated: December 22, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Adam S. Hochschild 

Stephen Crampton, pro hac vice Charles W. Fillmore 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Senior Counsel State Bar # 00785861 

PO Box 4506 H. Dustin Fillmore III 

Tupelo, MS 38803 State Bar # 06996010 

(662)255-9439 THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 

scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org 201 Main Street, Suite 700 

 Fort Worth, TX 76102 

Michael McHale, pro hac vice (817)332-2351 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Counsel chad@fillmorefirm.com 

10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110 dusty@fillmorefirm.com 

Omaha, NE 68114 

(402)501-8586 Nathan Loyd, pro hac vice

mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

 5101 Old Highway 5, Box 442 

Adam S. Hochschild, pro hac vice Lebanon, GA 30146 

Hochschild Law Firm (559)744-3664

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel nathaniel.loyd@thomasmoresociety.org 

PO Box 401 

Plainfield, VT 05667 

(314)503-0326 

adam@hochschildlaw.com 

Mary Catherine Hodes, pro hac vice

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor 

Clayton, MO 63105 

(314)825-5725 

mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org 

Paul M. Jonna, pro hac vice 

LiMandri & Jonna LLP 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

P.O. Box 9120 

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 

(858)759-994 

pjonna@limandri.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 52 Filed 12/22/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1222