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. ) 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

Plaintiffs hereby give notice of a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in Singh v. Berger, No. 22-5234 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2022) 

(attached hereto), that is directly relevant to this case and the pending motions for injunctive 

relief (ECF No. 4). 

In Singh, the Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction 

sought by members of the Sikh religion against the Marine Corps. Specifically, the plaintiffs 

sought to enlist in the Marine Corps and sought religious accommodations to have beards, long 

hair, and certain ceremonial items. The Circuit Court found the plaintiffs demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and 

that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in their favor. Singh at 39. The Circuit 

Court remanded the case to the District Court with direction to enter a preliminary injunction in 

favor of two of the plaintiffs who demonstrated ongoing irreparable harm and for further 

consideration of the third plaintiff’s request because he may have postponed his plans to enlist. 

Id. at 39-40.

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 54 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1290
2 

The Circuit Court’s decision is analogous to the numerous recent RFRA decisions 

enjoining military vaccine mandates. See, e.g., Schelske v. Austin, No. 6:22-cv-0049-H (N.D. 

Tex. Dec. 21, 2022) (ECF No. 52-1); Doster v. Kendall, 54 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2022) (ECF No. 

48-1); Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Austin, 594 F. Supp.3d 767 (N.D. Tex. 2022); Col. Fin. Mgmt. 

Officer v. Austin, No. 8:22-CV-1275-SDM-TGW, 2022 WL 3643512 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022); 

Air Force Officer v. Austin, 588 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (M.D. Ga. 2022); Poffenbarger v. Kendall, 

588 F. Supp. 3d 770 (S.D. Ohio 2022); Navy Seal 1 v. Austin, 586 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (M.D. Fla. 

2022). 

The Singh opinion supports Plaintiffs’ position in this case on numerous issues including 

the limits to military deference under RFRA (Singh at 3-7, 17, 27); justiciability, exhaustion, and 

ripeness (id. at 9); the military’s lack of compelling interest, including the inability of broadly 

formulated interests such as “mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, and good order and 

discipline” to satisfy the rigorous requirements of RFRA and the military’s granting of medical 

and other secular waivers disproving the existence of a purported compelling interest (id. at 14-

26, 32); the military’s failure to satisfy the least restrictive means test, particularly in light of 

“readily at hand alternatives, especially those that have been proven to work in analogous 

circumstances” (id. at 26-34); public interest, including the “profound national interest in 

diversity within the military” evidenced by codification into law of “the imperative that military 

commanders make military service compatible with diverse religious traditions” (id. at 34-37); 

and ongoing irreparable harm to service members who want to serve the country right now (id. at 

37-39). 

Importantly, on this last point, the Circuit Court instructed the District Court to enter an 

injunction requiring the Marine Corps to enlist certain plaintiffs because “[e]ach day that the 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 54 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1291
3 

Marine Corps refuses to let them take the oath of enlistment unless they surrender their faith 

inflicts an irreversible and irreparable harm.” Id. at 38. The Circuit Court’s required relief is 

particularly relevant to the present case, where the Coast Guard is refusing to reenlist or promote 

service members due to their religiously-motivated activities leading directly to their discharge. 

More than 1,200 Coast Guard service members still face the day-to-day uncertainty of 

whether they must forego their careers, income, housing, and medical, dental, and life insurance 

“unless they surrender their faith.” Class-wide injunctive relief is urgently needed to halt the 

ongoing irreparable harm. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 54 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1292
4 

Dated: December 27, 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 54 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1293