1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ALARIC STONE, ERIC JACKSON, and )

MICHAEL MARCENELLE, on behalf of ) 

themselves and all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) Case No. 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

v. ) 

 )

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, in his official ) 

capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, ) 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his ) 

official capacity as Secretary of Defense, )

LINDA L. FAGAN, in her official ) 

capacity as Commandant of the Coast Guard, and ) 

BRIAN K. PENOYER, in his official capacity ) 

as Assistant Commandant for Human ) 

Resources of the Coast Guard, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION 

Plaintiffs Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG) Alaric Stone, Boatswain’s Mate 1st Class 

(BM1) Eric Jackson, and LTJG Michael Marcenelle, on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated (the “Class”), for their Class Action Complaint against the Defendants in their 

official capacities, hereby state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Defendants are trying to force Plaintiffs and more than 1,200 other Coast Guard 

members to submit to being injected with a COVID-19 vaccine against their sincerely held 

religious beliefs. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 68 PageID 1
2 

2. In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ policy of categorically denying 

virtually all religious accommodation requests from the Coast Guard COVID-19 vaccine 

mandate, which violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. 

3. Chaplains attested to the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious objections to being 

vaccinated, and Defendants did not contest the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious objections to 

being vaccinated. 

4. Plaintiffs contracted COVID-19 and obtained natural immunity, and Plaintiffs 

have been willing and able and remain willing and able to wear a mask and test periodically. 

5. On May 4, 2022, the Coast Guard issued a purported final denial of LTJG Stone’s 

September 22, 2021, request for religious accommodation. On May 3, 2022, the Coast Guard 

issued a purported final denial of BM1 Jackson’s November 7, 2021, request for religious 

accommodation. On May 16, 2022, the Coast Guard issued a purported final denial of LTJG 

Marcenelle’s September 9, 2021, request for religious accommodation. 

6. The Coast Guard has denied virtually all of the 1,200+ religious accommodation 

requests filed by Coast Guard service members. 

7. Any approved religious accommodation requests were for service members 

already slated for retirement or separation. 

8. The Coast Guard is experiencing a significant recruiting and retention shortfall 

due in part to the Coast Guard’s systematic mistreatment of religious service members. 

9. This action is based upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) 

and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both of which protect Plaintiffs’ and 

each Class member’s fundamental right to the free exercise of their religion. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 68 PageID 2
3 

10. This action is also based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which 

protects Plaintiffs and the Class from arbitrary and capricious agency action by Defendants. 

11. Plaintiffs and the Class challenge Defendants’ orders, policies, and actions 

detailed below, facially for lack of exception for any religious exercise, and as applied to 

Plaintiffs and the Class in denying their particular requests for religious accommodation. 

12. Plaintiffs and the Class challenge Defendants’ orders, policies, and actions 

detailed below, as applied to Plaintiffs and the Class in refusing to consider or grant medical 

exemptions based on natural immunity and in failing to provide an appellate review as required 

by mandatory Coast Guard instructions. 

13. Defendants’ orders, policies, and actions deprived and will continue to deprive 

Plaintiffs and other Class members of their paramount rights and guarantees under federal law, 

including under RFRA, the United States Constitution, and the APA. 

14. Defendants committed each and every act alleged herein under the color of law 

and authority—and in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. 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. 

16. The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 because this is a civil 

action against the United States. 

17. The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 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 Plaintiffs and 

Class. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 68 PageID 3
4 

18. The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c) because 

Plaintiffs’ religious exercise and that of other service members have been burdened by 

Defendants. 

19. The Court also has jurisdiction to review and enjoin ultra vires or unconstitutional 

agency action through an equitable cause of action. 

20. This Court has authority to award the requested relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

2000bb-1; the requested declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02; the requested 

injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202; and costs and attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 

21. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, including § 

1391(e)(1)(C) because at least one of the Plaintiffs (BM1 Jackson) resides in this district. 

PARTIES 

22. LTJG Stone is an officer in the United States Coast Guard. 

23. BM1 Jackson is a non-commissioned officer in the United States Coast Guard. He 

is a resident of the Northern District of Texas, within the Fort Worth Division. 

24. LTJG Marcenelle is an officer in the United States Coast Guard. 

25. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary 

Mayorkas is sued in his official capacity. 

26. Defendant Lloyd J. Austin, III, is the Secretary of the United States Department of 

Defense. Secretary Austin is sued in his official capacity. 

27. Defendant Admiral Linda Fagan is the Commandant of the United States Coast 

Guard. Admiral Fagan is sued in her official capacity. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 68 PageID 4
5 

28. Defendant Rear Admiral Brian K. Penoyer is the Assistant Commandant for 

Human Resources (CG-1). Rear Admiral Penoyer is sued in his official capacity.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates at Issue 

29. On August 24, 2021, the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a mandate for 

all service members of the Armed Forces under Department of Defense authority on active duty 

or in the Ready Reserve to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (“DoD Mandate”). 

30. During peacetime, the Coast Guard is subordinate to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard is subordinate 

to the Department of Defense only in wartime, and only if Congress so directs. 

31. On August 26, 2021, then-Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral K. L. 

Shultz, issued a service-wide announcement designated ALCOAST 305/21. ALCOAST 305/21 

directed all Coast Guard active duty and ready reserve members to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech 

COVID-19 vaccine “[c]onsistent with the Secretary of Defense’s direction.” 

32. ALCOAST 305/21 added that Commanding Officers “shall ensure that all Service 

members are aware of this message and made available and scheduled for vaccination in 

coordination with servicing medical personnel. Commanding Officers and leaders shall not 

commence administrative or disciplinary action based solely on a Service member's decision to 

decline vaccination until such implementing guidance is promulgated.” 

33. ALCOAST 305/21 did not state that the direction was a lawful general order. 

34. At the time of ALCOAST 305/21, the Coast Guard already had at least a 71.5% 

vaccination rate. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 5 of 68 PageID 5
6 

35. On September 7, 2021, the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support, Vice 

Admiral Paul F. Thomas, issued ALCOAST 315/21 instructing commanders, commanding 

officers, and officers in charge to direct unvaccinated Coast Guard members to begin vaccination 

immediately. The message described itself as a lawful general order (“Coast Guard Mandate”). 

36. The DoD Mandate, Coast Guard Mandate, and any and all other related vaccine 

mandate orders are herein referred to, collectively, as “the Mandates” and sometimes referred to 

interchangeably as applicable. 

37. LTJG Stone was reprimanded on July 21, 2022, for not complying with the Coast 

Guard Mandate. 

38. ALCOAST 089/21, dated September 13, 2021 and titled “COVID-19: Permanent 

and Temporary Medical Exemptions to COVID-19 Immunization Requirement,” states that 

ALCOAST 315/21 mandates COVID-19 vaccination. ALCOAST 089/21 does not cite 

ALCOAST 305/21 in any capacity. 

39. The issuing authority of ALCOAST 315/21, the Deputy Commandant for Mission 

Support, is subordinate to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

40. Multiple Coast Guard offices are also subordinate to the Commandant of the 

Coast Guard, including the Deputy Commandant for Operations, Commander Atlantic Area, and 

Commander Pacific Area. These offices are not subordinate to the Deputy Commandant for 

Mission Support. 

41. The Deputy Commandant for Mission Support is outside of the chain of command 

for personnel under the Deputy Commandant for Operations, Commander Atlantic Area, and 

Commander Pacific Area. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 6 of 68 PageID 6
7 

42. The Mandates do not apply to the approximately 30,000 members of the Coast 

Guard Auxiliary. The Coast Guard Auxiliary “provide[s] trained crews and facilities to augment 

the Coast Guard” and often work alongside active duty and reserve Coast Guard service 

members. Coast Guard Auxiliary members are permitted to shop in Coast Guard Exchanges on 

Coast Guard installations. The Coast Guard continues to permit and even sponsor off-station unit 

morale events, where Coast Guard service members gather in local communities in close 

proximity with civilians of uncertain vaccination statuses, such as at restaurants, sporting events, 

public parks, movie theaters, or theme parks. 

43. The Mandates do not apply to Coast Guard Reserve members on the Inactive 

Status List (ISL). Members on the ISL are still members of the Coast Guard, carry Coast Guard 

identification cards, and maintain access to Coast Guard and DoD installations, including 

housing, gyms, commissaries, food courts, chapels, libraries, theaters, and morale, welfare, and 

recreation (MWR) facilities and events. 

44. The Mandates do not apply to Coast Guard dependents. Unvaccinated Coast 

Guard dependents continue to live in base housing alongside Coast Guard members, and enjoy 

unrestricted access to housing, gyms, commissaries, food courts, chapels, libraries, theaters, and 

MWR facilities and events. The Department of Defense also has an express policy for retaining 

non-worldwide deployable members on a case-by-case basis. See DoD Instruction 1332.45.1

Moreover, LTJG Stone is personally aware that the other two officers that work in his District 5 

Intelligence Branch office are non-worldwide deployable (for reasons not related to the COVID19 vaccine) but yet are allowed to remain in the Coast Guard.

 1

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/133245p.pdf?ver=2018-08-

01-143025-053.

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 7 of 68 PageID 7
8 

The Coast Guard’s Religious Accommodation Regulations 

45. At the time of issuance of the Coast Guard Mandate, Commandant Instruction 

(COMDTINST) M6230.4G, Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of 

Infectious Disease, dated February 16, 2018, was an existing policy and procedure of the Coast 

Guard and remains a policy and procedure of the Coast Guard. 

46. COMDTINST M6230.4G is mandatory. 

47. Other branches of the military have policies and procedures identical to 

COMDTINST M6230.4G: Army 40-562; Navy BUMEDINST 6230.15B; and Air Force AFI 48-

110. 

48. COMDTINST M6230.4G provides an accommodation program for service 

members seeking an accommodation (also referred to as an exemption) from a vaccination 

requirement. The accommodation program includes administrative exemptions and medical 

exemptions. 

49. COMDTINST M6230.4G states in part that administrative exemptions include 

exemptions for religious reasons. 

50. According to COMDTINST M6230.4G, to obtain a religious exemption from an 

immunization requirement, a Coast Guard service member must be counseled by a military 

physician and his or her commander. 

51. On August 30, 2021, the Coast Guard issued COMDTINST 1000.15, titled 

“Military Religious Accommodations.” This was the first time the Coast Guard issued this 

regulation providing detailed instructions on granting religious accommodations to service 

members. 

52. COMDTINST 1000.15 is mandatory. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 8 of 68 PageID 8
9 

53. COMDTINST 1000.15 states in part that “the Armed Forces must accommodate 

the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or 

religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis 

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

assignment.” 

54. According to ALCOAST 270/22 dated July 25, 2022, “all [Coast Guard Mandate] 

non-compliant service members will be processed for separation.” 

55. According to the Coast Guard document titled “Command Toolkit – Mandatory 

COVID-19 Vaccinations Version 2.0 (25 July 2022),” enlisted and officers who are not 

compliant with the Coast Guard Mandate are not eligible to be selected for promotion. If service 

member has already been selected for promotion, the promotion will be revoked. 

56. ALCOAST 315/21 threatened to restrict official travel, schooling, and leave for 

unvaccinated service members, including service members seeking a religious accommodation. 

57. LTJG Marcenelle requested leave to travel from South Carolina to North Carolina 

on March 5, 2022, to run in the Coast Guard Marathon after months of training. LTJG 

Marcenelle’s supervisor and commander both disapproved the request due to his vaccination 

status. 

58. COMDTINST 1001.15 further states in part that the Coast Guard will “normally 

accommodate” religious practices of a service member. 

59. The Coast Guard has “granted” at most approximately 1% of all religious 

accommodation requests from the Mandates. Any approved religious accommodation requests 

were for service members already slated for separation or retirement. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 9 of 68 PageID 9
10 

60. The Coast Guard has granted at least 53 exemptions, including at least eight 

permanent exemptions, from the Coast Guard Mandate for reasons other than religion. 

61. According to COMDTINST 1000.15, the approval authority for a religious 

accommodation from immunization is Commandant (CG-133). CG-133 is the Coast Guard 

Office of Military Personnel Policy. 

62. The Office Chief of the Office of Military Personnel Policy (CG-133) is Captain 

Anthony Williams. 

63. Captain Anthony Williams denied BM1 Jackson’s initial religious 

accommodation request on December 14, 2021. 

64. Captain Anthony Williams denied LTJG Stone’s initial religious accommodation 

request on January 19, 2022. 

65. Captain Anthony Williams denied LTJG Marcenelle’s initial religious 

accommodation request on February 8, 2022. 

66. According to COMDTINST 1000.15, the official in the chain of command or 

chain of supervision one level above the officer or official who denied the request must review 

an appeal of a denied religious accommodation request. This appellate authority is required by 

COMDTINST 1000.15 to either overturn or uphold the contested accommodation decision. 

67. CG-133 is under CG-13, the Coast Guard Director of Military Personnel Policy. 

68. The Chief of Military Personnel Policy for the Coast Guard (CG-13) is Dr. Donna 

Mischell Navarro. 

69. Dr. Navarro did not overturn or uphold the denial of Plaintiffs’ respective 

religious accommodation requests on appeal in her role as CG-13. 

70. CG-13 is under CG-1, the Coast Guard Office of Human Resources. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 10 of 68 PageID 10
11 

71. Letters sent to Plaintiffs denying their initial religious accommodation requests 

recognize and confirm that the appeal authority for their requests was the Assistant Commandant 

for Human Resources (CG-1). 

72. Rear Admiral Eric Jones was the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources 

until April 2022. 

73. Rear Admiral Eric Jones did not overturn or uphold the denial of multiple 

Plaintiffs’ respective accommodation requests on appeal. 

74. Dr. Navarro was the acting Assistant Commandant for Human Resources during 

May 2022 until at least July 2022. 

75. Dr. Navarro did not overturn or uphold the denial of Plaintiffs’ respective 

accommodation requests on appeal. 

76. Defendant Penoyer became the current Assistant Commandant for Human 

Resources as of July 2022. 

77. Defendant Penoyer did not overturn or uphold the denial of Plaintiffs’ 

accommodation requests on appeal. 

78. James Knight, a member of the Senior Executive Service and the Deputy 

Assistant Commandant for Acquisition and Director of Acquisition Services under CG-9 

(Acquisition Directorate), purportedly denied the appeal of LTJG Alaric Stone on May 4, 2022. 

79. Rear Admiral Miriam Lafferty, Assistant Commandant for Reserve (CG-R), 

purportedly denied the appeal of BM1 Jackson on May 3, 2022. 

80. Rear Admiral Jones purportedly denied the appeal of LTJG Marcenelle on May 

16, 2022. At the time of signature, Rear Admiral Jones had already departed CG-1. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 11 of 68 PageID 11
12 

81. No one who issued the purported denials of Plaintiffs’ appeals had authority to 

issue the purported denials 

82. The respective purported appeal authority for each Plaintiff stated: “My decision 

in your case came only after extensive consideration. I personally reviewed your appeals package 

and consulted with a Judge Advocate to ensure I accurately applied the law and policy to your 

specific circumstance.” 

83. The purported final denial memoranda for each Plaintiff are virtually identical 

aside from name changes and dates. 

84. None of the Plaintiffs’ appeal denial memoranda mention the plaintiffs’ respective 

duties, individual health risks, natural immunity, compliance with mitigation protocols, 

availability of less restrictive means, additional facts and arguments submitted in plaintiffs’ 

respective appeal memoranda, or a statement of the Coast Guard’s alleged compelling interest in 

denying an accommodation to the respective plaintiffs. 

85. Based on information and belief, the Coast Guard informed service members of 

their “personally reviewed,” “extensive[ly] consider[ed],” and inevitably denied appeals at a rate 

of roughly 200 per week between May 4, 2022, and May 25, 2022. 

86. The Department of Defense Inspector General investigated and as of June 2, 2022 

“found a trend of generalized assessments rather than the individualized assessment that is 

required by Federal law and DoD and Military Service policies.” He also concluded that, at most, 

“the average review period” by appeal authorities “was about 12 minutes for each package,” 

which is likely “insufficient to process each request in an individualized manner.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 12 of 68 PageID 12
13 

87. On September 2, 2022, Defendant Austin forwarded the Inspector General’s June 

2, 2022 memorandum to his Under Secretary and military branch leaders for unspecified 

“appropriate action... as necessary and appropriate.” 

88. Defendants have taken no action to remedy the unlawful activity the Inspector 

General found. 

Natural Immunity as a Basis for Medical Exemption and a Lesser Restrictive Means than 

Vaccination 

89. COMDTINST M6230.4G states in part: “Health care providers will determine a 

medical exemption based on the health of the vaccine candidate and the nature of the 

immunization under consideration. . . . General examples of medical exemptions [from a 

vaccination requirement] include the following . . . (b) Evidence of immunity based on serologic 

tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances.” 

90. COMDTINST M6230.4G requires health care providers to record “exemption 

codes denoting evidence of immunity,” in addition to requiring health care providers to record 

any “severe adverse event after immunization.” 

91. COMDTINST M6230.4G further requires that service members with “[e]vidence 

of immunity (for example, by serologic antibody test); documented previous infection . . . ; [or] 

natural infection presumed” (emphasis added) should be provided a medical exemption code 

“MI.” 

92. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines immunity as 

“protection against a disease.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 13 of 68 PageID 13
14 

93. According to the CDC, immunity “can be acquired in two ways, either by 

contracting the disease or through vaccination.” The CDC adds that such immunity “is usually 

permanent, meaning an individual is protected from the disease for the duration of their lives.” 

94. Consistent with COMDINST M6230.4G, the CDC’s definition of immunity states 

that “[i]mmunity is indicated by the presence of antibodies in the blood.” 

95. Immunity acquired by contracting the disease is also referred to as “natural 

immunity.” 

96. Natural immunity to COVID-19 is gained from previous infection of COVID-19. 

97. Natural immunity to COVID-19 gained from previous infection of COVID-19 has 

helped to protect people from medically significant disease, hospitalization, and death from 

COVID-19. 

98. Existence of COVID-19 antibodies in the body indicates natural immunity to 

COVID-19. 

99. Individuals with positive serological tests for antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 (the 

virus that causes COVID-19) are excluded from clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates 

because natural immunity, indicated by the presence of antibodies in the blood, provides 

protection which could interfere with an analysis of vaccine effectiveness. 

100. The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a COVID-19 regulation recognizing that the 

vaccinated and those who “have recovered from infection . . . are no longer sources of future 

infections.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,604. 

101. The CDC has recognized that natural immunity has helped to substantially reduce 

the risk for medically significant COVID-19 illness, hospitalization, and death. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 14 of 68 PageID 14
15 

102. The CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations “no longer differentiate 

based on a person’s vaccination status because” a) breakthrough infections occur in vaccinated 

persons, and b) natural immunity provides adequate protection against reinfection, transmission, 

and serious illness.2

103. ALCOAST 305/21 states in part, “Those with previous COVID-19 infection are 

not considered fully vaccinated.” 

104. ALCOAST 089/21 states in part, “Permanent medical exemptions will be granted 

only when an individual has a medical contraindication to the required COVID-19 vaccine(s). . . 

previous COVID-19 infection is not considered proof of immunity.” 

105. The Coast Guard recorded more COVID-19 cases in vaccinated personnel than in 

unvaccinated personnel beginning on or about September 7, 2021 (the date of ALCOAST 

315/21) and continuing through at least the end of 2021. The Coast Guard’s infection statistics 

do not differentiate between infection rates among unvaccinated personnel with natural 

immunity and unvaccinated personnel without natural immunity. 

106. Coast Guard officers, including Captain John Iskander, the Chief of Preventative 

Medicine and Population Health for the Coast Guard, published research in August 2021 

studying COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among Coast Guard members. The research showed 

that vaccine effectiveness among the Coast Guard declined twenty percentage points in the three 

months leading up to the Coast Guard Mandate. 

107. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the 

effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine “was negligible” just six months after 

vaccination. The researchers concluded that their findings were explained “by the short-lived 

 

2

 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7133e1.htm 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 15 of 68 PageID 15
16 

protection of primary-series vaccination against omicron infections and the more durable 

protection from natural infection.”3

108. A Coast Guard Atlantic Area briefing dated March 4, 2022, illustrated COVID-19 

cases between May 2020 and March 2022. 

109. According to this briefing, in January 2022, the Coast Guard Atlantic Area 

experienced a peak of 662 cases in January 2022. In August 2021 when the Coast Guard 

Mandate issued, the Coast Guard Atlantic Area only had approximately 150 cases. In December 

2020, the Coast Guard Atlantic area experienced a peak of 215 cases. The December 2020 peak 

was only exceeded by the January 2022 peak. 

110. As of May 2022, the Coast Guard had a vaccination rate of approximately 98%. 

In January 2022, the Coast Guard had at least a 95.2% vaccination rate. In August 2021, the 

Coast Guard had at least a 69.2% vaccination rate. In December 2020, the Coast Guard had 

below a 50% vaccination rate. 

111. The Coast Guard observed roughly ten times as many cases of COVID-19 in 

vaccinated personnel than in unvaccinated personnel during a period covering November and 

December 2021. 

112. The Coast Guard observed an increase of over 70% in the number of COVID 

cases in vaccinated personnel during a period covering November and December 2021. During 

the same period, cases among unvaccinated personnel (including those with and without natural 

immunity) nearly halved. 

 

3

 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 16 of 68 PageID 16
17 

113. Nearly 90% of the man-days lost due to COVID-19 quarantines during a period 

covering November and December 2021 were due to quarantines among vaccinated personnel, 

as opposed to unvaccinated personnel. 

114. The Coast Guard has granted permanent medical exemptions from the Coast 

Guard Mandate for medical reasons other than evidence of immunity based on serologic testing.4

115. The Coast Guard has rejected medical exemption requests for service members 

with immunity based on serologic tests or previous infection in accordance with COMDTINST 

M6230.4G. 

116. ALCOAST 305/21 further states in part that although service members are 

required to receive the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine, service members who sought 

protection from COVID-19 by non-FDA approved methods would nonetheless be considered 

“fully vaccinated.” 

117. ALCOAST 315/21 further states in part that members may receive vaccination 

outside of a Coast Guard clinic. Such members need only provide evidence of vaccination to a 

Coast Guard clinic to be recorded as “vaccinated.” 

118. ALCOAST 089/21 states in part that “[t]he only acceptable proof of immunity is 

completion of a COVID-19 vaccination series.” 

119. ALCOAST 315/21 warns service members that “[p]roviding false vaccination 

information is a violation of Article 107, UCMJ and may also result in administrative and/or 

disciplinary action.” 

120. In February 2022, a Marine was charged with providing over 300 falsified 

vaccination cards to unvaccinated persons, including members of the military. The Marine 

 

4

 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 17 of 68 PageID 17
18 

allegedly arranged for unvaccinated persons to receive an authentic vaccination document while 

destroying, rather than administering, vaccine doses. As a result, service members had proof of 

vaccination, which could be confirmed against vaccine databases recording exhausted doses, 

without actually having been vaccinated. 

121. These unvaccinated service members could be recorded as “vaccinated” by their 

service and freed from any threatened or actual adverse action merely by presenting their 

falsified vaccination cards. 

122. Based on information and belief, the Coast Guard does not inspect vaccine cards 

submitted as proof of vaccination to ensure validity. 

123. Because no medical tests exist that can determine whether a person with SARSCoV-2 antibodies received a vaccine or recovered from a prior infection, the Coast Guard cannot 

conduct tests to determine whether a person claiming to be vaccinated was, in fact, vaccinated.5

124. ALCOAST 305/21 further states in part that COMDTINST M6230.4 “will be 

updated to reflect the Secretary of Defense’s direction.” 

125. COMDTINST M6230.4 has not been updated since February 16, 2018. 

126. ALCOAST 305/21 further states in part, “Service members who are actively 

participating in COVID-19 clinical trials are exempted from mandatory vaccination against 

COVID-19 until the trial is complete in order to avoid invalidating such clinical trial results.”

Plaintiffs Have been Ordered to Comply With the Coast Guard Mandate 

127. On May 11, 2022, a Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard issued an order to 

Plaintiff Eric Jackson stating in part, “You are hereby ordered to report to Base Los Angeles-

 

5

 https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currentlyrecommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 18 of 68 PageID 18
19 

Long Beach Clinic at 1330 on 24 May 2022 to receive the first dose of a fully FDA-approved 

COVID-19 vaccine.” (“Coast Guard Order to BM1 Jackson”). 

128. On July 21, 2022, a Deputy Commander of the Coast Guard issued an order to 

LTJG Stone stating in part, “You are hereby ordered to report to the Vaccination Clinic of your 

choice by 1500 on Friday, 29 July 2022, to receive the first dose of a fully FDA-approved 

COVID-19 vaccine.” (“Coast Guard Order to LTJG Stone”). 

129. On May 27, 2022, a Deputy Commander of the Coast Guard issued an order to 

LTJG Marcenelle stating in part, “You are hereby ordered to receive your first dose of a fully 

FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine no later than Tuesday, 03 June 2022. You will email proof of 

your vaccine to medical.” (“Coast Guard Order to LTJG Marcenelle”). 

LTJG Stone’s Career 

130. LTJG Stone graduated first in his class from the United State Coast Guard 

Academy in 2020 (the Distinguished Honor Graduate of that class), achieving the highest overall 

performance in the academic, military, and physical components of the entire Coast Guard 

Academy program. 

131. LTJG Stone’s family has a long tradition of service in the Coast Guard, beginning 

with Commander Elmer Stone, the Coast Guard’s first aviator and namesake of the Coast Guard 

ship, the USCGC Stone. 

132. LTJG Stone’s father served as Lieutenant in the Coast Guard. 

133. When the military in 2020 began imposing COVID-19 restrictions on personnel—

including masking, social distancing, and working remotely—LTJG Stone followed and led 

others to follow these policies. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 19 of 68 PageID 19
20 

134. LTJG Stone has conducted four worldwide afloat tours, each lasting at least three 

months, since commissioning. 

135. LTJG Stone has since transferred to the shore-based District 5 Intelligence Branch 

under a “needs of the service” exception to Coast Guard’s general prohibition on transfers by 

unvaccinated service members. 

9. LTJG Stone’s July 2022 evaluation recommended him for “in-zone reorder,” i.e., 

for an extremely rare accelerated promotion. His comments stated that he is: “performing well 

above paygrade”; an “[e]xemplary officer that embodies critical leadership skills, work ethic, 

technical acumen, & commitment to core values”; “[i]intrinsically motivated . . . w/ limitless 

potential”; and his reporting officer gave him the “[h]ighest recommendation for future afloat 

tours,” and said he “will no-doubt excel & compete for O3 Command positions.” It further stated 

that he is a “Must-select for Cyber, Cryptology billets”—consistent with his current position at 

the District 5 Intelligence Branch—and observed that he has “[d]rive & passion w/ [an] 

impeccable academic record underscor[ing] highest rec[ommendation] for Public Admin, Law & 

Intel PG programs.” Finally, it recommended that he be “Prime select[ed]” for “high vis[ibility] 

assignments incl[uding]” the “White House,” the Coast Guard Liaison Office, Congress, and 

Flag aide. 

136. LTJG Stone has consistently and fully supported and sustained Defendants’ 

interests in military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health, and safety. 

BM1 Jackson’s Career 

137. For more than 18 years, BM1 Jackson has served his country in the United States 

Coast Guard. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 20 of 68 PageID 20
21 

138. The military has rewarded Jackson with numerous medals for his service, 

including the Coast Guard Special Operations Service Ribbon in 2022. He earned this award 

with a rapid-response interdiction team uniquely trained to intercept human smugglers off the 

coast of California, having helped halt many smuggling boats and apprehended numerous 

captains while transferring migrants to Customs and Border Patrol. 

139. In July 2022, the Coast Guard transferred him from California to South Padre 

Island, Texas, despite the Coast Guard’s policy forbidding transfers for unvaccinated Coast 

Guard service members. He was told his transfer was pursuant to a “needs of the Service” 

exception and was forced to move his family from California to Texas on short notice. 

140. Since his transfer occurred pursuant to the Coast Guard’s needs, he was led to 

believe that he could continue serving in the Coast Guard until his current enlistment expired. 

141. BM1 Jackson has consistently and fully supported and sustained Defendants’ 

interests in military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health, and safety. 

LTJG Marcenelle’s Career 

142. LTJG Marcenelle began his service to the United States in 2011 when he 

commissioned as an officer in the United States Marine Corps. 

143. LTJG Marcenelle served as an Air Intelligence Officer, Weapons and Tactics 

Intelligence Instructor, and Recruiting Management Officer in the Marine Corps. 

144. While in the Marine Corps, LTJG Marcenelle deployed multiple times, including 

to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and throughout the Mediterranean. 

145. LTJG Marcenelle transferred to the United States Coast Guard in 2019, with no 

break in service. LTJG Marcenelle has over a decade of commissioned service in the United 

States Military. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 21 of 68 PageID 21
22 

146. LTJG Marcenelle currently serves as an instructor at the International Maritime 

Officers School with Training Center Yorktown, Virginia. 

147. Since early 2020, LTJG Marcenelle has followed all COVID-19 related 

precautions required by the Coast Guard, including masking, social distancing, and working 

remotely when possible. 

148. In this role, LTJG Marcenelle teaches international officers, including by 

transporting international officers to historic sites in the United States. 

149. At present, the Coast Guard does not require personnel to mask, test, or socially 

distance due to the consistently low risk of COVID-19. 

150. The Coast Guard is aware that LTJG Marcenelle is not vaccinated. The Coast 

Guard still does not ask or require LTJG Marcenelle to take the mitigation protocols LTJG 

Marcenelle has in the past. 

151. The military has awarded LTJG Marcenelle numerous medals throughout his 

career in both the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. 

152. On May 25, 2022, the Coast Guard finalized a Coast Guard Achievement Medal 

for LTJG Marcenelle. 

153. The citation for LTJG Marcenelle’s medal covered his superior performance 

while assigned to Coast Guard Sector Charleston from April 2019 to June 2022. 

154. By the Achievement Medal, the Coast Guard praised LTJG Marcenelle for his 

meritorious service including supporting prosecution of 60 multi-mission cases, saving or 

assisting 76 lives, and preserving property valued at over $2 million. LTJG Marcenelle also deescalated a potential hostage situation, resulting in the safe release of passengers from the control 

of an intoxicated boat operator. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 22 of 68 PageID 22
23 

155. During the period covering LTJG Marcenelle’s superior performance, LTJG 

Marcenelle performed his duties while unvaccinated and with adherence to the Coast Guard’s 

chosen health mitigation protocols. 

156. On the exact same day he was awarded the Achievement Medal, June 1, 2022, the 

Coast Guard also reprimanded LTJG Marcenelle for not being vaccinated. 

157. LTJG Marcenelle has consistently and fully supported and sustained Defendants’ 

interests in military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health, and safety.

Plaintiffs’ Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs 

158. Plaintiffs are Christians. 

159. As Christians, Plaintiffs believe that abortion is a grave evil and contrary to their 

faith. 

160. Plaintiffs sincerely believe that receiving a vaccine that was derived from or 

tested using aborted fetal cell lines in its development would violate their conscience and is 

contrary to their faith. 

161. All of the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved by the FDA and available in 

the United States were derived from or tested using (as part of their development) aborted fetal 

cell lines. For this reason, Plaintiffs are unwilling to receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines 

currently available. 

162. In addition, in accordance with their faith, some or all Plaintiffs believe that the 

“body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19-20), and that getting injected with a novel 

substance of unknown long-term effects would violate this belief. 

163. Plaintiffs do not oppose all vaccines.

Plaintiffs’ Natural Immunity 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 23 of 68 PageID 23
24 

164. In August 2022, LTJG Stone took a COVID-19 antibody test and tested positive 

for COVID-19 antibodies. 

165. In approximately April 2020, BM1 Jackson experienced some COVID-19-type 

symptoms and believed and continues to believe he had COVID-19 at that time. 

166. In December 2021, LTJG Marcenelle contracted COVID-19 and tested positive 

for COVID-19 at a Naval Health clinic. 

167. In August 2022, LTJG Marcenelle took a COVID-19 antibody test and tested 

positive for COVID-19 antibodies. 

168. In September 2022, LTJG Marcenelle tested positive for COVID-19, experienced 

mild symptoms, comfortably ran six miles shortly after he tested positive, and quickly and fully 

recovered from COVID-19. 

169. According to the CDC, Plaintiffs’ prior infection and positive antibody tests 

indicate natural immunity from COVID-19.

Plaintiffs’ Requests for and Defendants’ Denial of Exemption and Accommodation 

170. COMDTINST 1000.15 provides a form letter for a service member to request a 

religious accommodation (“Request Form”). 

171. On September 22, 2021, using the Request Form, LTJG Stone timely submitted a 

written request for religious accommodation from the Mandates. LTJG Stone’s Request Form 

included details on his success following CDC prevention measures, including social distancing, 

masking, and good hygiene, that kept him free from mission loss, despite being unvaccinated, 

and despite close contact with persons actively infected by COVID-19. 

172. Before applying, Stone’s commanding officer told him and his other unvaccinated 

crewmates that “I don’t want to discuss your religious beliefs because frankly, they don’t matter 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 24 of 68 PageID 24
25 

to me.” He accordingly prepared a blanket negative endorsement of all religious accommodation 

requests, despite there being no requirement that commanding officers provide endorsements of 

religious accommodation requests in the first place. This was consistent with the fact that at 

approximately the same time, Coast Guard chaplains had been instructed to challenge religious 

objectors to see if the religious objection was a “ruse,” while apparently no such instruction was 

given to those assessing medical or other secular requests.6 Thus it was evident from the 

beginning that the Coast Guard’s religious accommodation process was a ruse. 

173. On January 20, 2022, LTJG Stone received a denial (dated January 19) of his 

September 22, 2021, request for religious accommodation (“LTJG Stone’s Initial Denial”). 

174. On November 7, 2021, using the Request Form, BM1 Jackson timely submitted a 

written request for religious accommodation from the Mandates. BM1 Jackson’s Request Form 

included details on the burden the Mandates presented to his beliefs, including the link of each 

available COVID-19 vaccine to abortion and his belief that his body is a temple of God. BM1 

Jackson further documented his adherence to masking, social distancing, and testing guidelines, 

his voluntary sanitization enhancement protocols for his work space, and his willingness to take 

a different vaccine not burdening his religion should one be available in the future. 

175. BM1 Jackson received a denial dated December 14, 2021, of his November 7, 

2021, request for religious accommodation (“BM1 Jackson’s Initial Denial”). 

176. On September 9, 2021, using the Request Form, LTJG Marcenelle timely 

submitted a written request for religious accommodation from the Coast Guard Mandate. LTJG 

Marcenelle explained the basis of his objection to the Coast Guard Mandate rooted in his 

 6 See, e.g., https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/09/coast-guard-to-scrutinize-membersrequesting-religious-exemptions-for-mandatory-covid-vaccine-leaked-document-reveals/.

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 25 of 68 PageID 25
26 

Catholic faith, citing authoritative Catholic Church texts explaining his obligation to refrain from 

vaccination by the currently-available COVID-19 vaccines. LTJG Marcenelle stated he would 

receive a COVID-19 vaccine developed in accordance with his faith once such a vaccine became 

available. 

177. LTJG Marcenelle’s commander left LTJG Marcenelle’s religious accommodation 

request, including his personally-identifiable information, at her sister’s house while on leave. 

LTJG Marcenelle resubmitted his documents on October 12, 2021. 

178. On February 10, 2022, LTJG Marcenelle received a denial (dated February 8) of 

his request for religious accommodation (“LTJG Marcenelle’s Initial Denial”). 

179. Each of LTJG Stone’s Initial Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Initial Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Initial Denial stated in part, “I do not question the sincerity of your beliefs or 

whether vaccine requirements substantially burden your religious practice.” 

180. Each of LTJG Stone’s Initial Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Initial Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Initial Denial further stated in part, “I have concluded that there are no lesser 

restrictive means available other than vaccination to achieve the compelling government interest 

here.” 

181. Both of LTJG Stone’s Initial Denial and BM1 Jackson’s Initial Denial further 

stated in part that the respective requests were denied because “limited access to advanced 

medical care while at-sea [] increases the health risks for yourself and your shipmates.” 

182. Each of LTJG Stone’s Initial Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Initial Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Initial Denial further stated in part preventative hygiene and masking were 

“ineff[ective].” 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 26 of 68 PageID 26
27 

183. LTJG Marcenelle’s Initial Denial further stated in part that his accommodation 

request was denied because he works “within close proximity of . . . Coast Guard Auxiliarists, 

some of whom are within high-risk categories.” 

184. Coast Guard Auxiliarists are not required to be vaccinated. 

185. On February 2, 2022, LTJG Stone timely appealed the denial of his request for a 

religious accommodation. LTJG Stone’s appeal letter enclosed multiple examples of virtually 

identical initial denial letters received by other Coast Guard service members. LTJG Stone also 

recorded that 12% of his fully-vaccinated shipmates tested positive for COVID and were forced 

to isolate while LTJG Stone continued performing his duties. 

186. LTJG Stone rebutted the false information in his initial denial, including 

correcting Captain Williams’s incorrect statement that LTJG Stone had frequent interaction with 

migrants, detainees, commercial/recreational mariners, or others while underway. 

187. In late June 2022, LTJG Stone received a written purported denial of his February 

2 appeal, signed by J. L. Knight (“LTJG Stone’s Final Denial”). This purported final denial was 

originally signed by Mr. Knight on May 4, 2022. 

188. On December 27, 2021, BM1 Jackson timely appealed the denial of his request 

for a religious accommodation. BM1 Jackson highlighted factual errors in the initial denial letter. 

189. BM1 Jackson’s appeal letter discussed other medical measures, including FDAapproved antiviral dugs and his natural immunity, which presented lesser restrictive means for 

protecting health while not burdening his religion. 

190. BM1 Jackson also recorded that a COVID-19 testing site was less than a mile 

away from his home, allowing him to obtain high-quality, rapid tests without stepping onto a 

Coast Guard installation. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 27 of 68 PageID 27
28 

191. BM1 Jackson reminded the appeal authority of his commander’s statement this 

his ship would “be able to maintain mission readiness with no hindrance to operations if BM1 

Jackson is granted a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 vaccine.” 

192. BM1 Jackson received a written purported denial of his December 27 appeal, 

signed by Rear Admiral M. L. Lafferty (“BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial”). This purported final 

denial was originally signed by Rear Admiral Lafferty on May 3, 2022. 

193. On February 25, 2022, LTJG Marcenelle timely appealed the denial of his 

request for a religious accommodation. LTJG Marcenelle informed the appeal authority of his 

natural immunity and recorded that the initial denial letter LTJG Marcenelle received was largely 

identical to letters received by his colleagues. 

194. LTJG Marcenelle received a written purported denial of his February 25 appeal, 

signed by Rear Admiral E. C. Jones (“LTJG Marcenelle’s Final Denial”). This purported final 

denial was originally signed by Rear Admiral Jones on May 16, 2022. 

195. Each of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial stated in part: “your appeal is denied.” 

196. Each of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial further stated in part: “I find no error occurred in reaching the decision 

to deny your religious accommodation request.” 

197. Each of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial further stated in part: “My decision in your case came only after 

extensive consideration. I personally reviewed your appeals package and consulted with a Judge 

Advocate to ensure I accurately applied the law and policy to your specific circumstances.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 28 of 68 PageID 28
29 

198. Each of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial further asserted a generalized interest in requirement of “a ready 

military workforce.” 

199. LTJG Stone’s Final Denial noted his objection to the use of fetal tissue, and 

proposed that LTJG Stone may choose another COVID-19 from the World Health 

Organization’s Emergency Use Listing, effectively mandating that he receive a non-FDAapproved vaccine. 

200. BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial and LTJG Marcenelle’s Final Denial did not include 

the fetal tissue note provided to LTJG Stone, despite BM1 Jackson and LTJG Marcenelle raising 

their objections to the use of aborted fetal tissue in their initial requests. 

201. Aside from the above-mentioned fetal tissue paragraph, as well as alterations for 

names and dates, each of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial were identical. 

202. Not one of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial addressed additional information or arguments presented in respective 

appeal letters. 

203. Not one of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial addressed why natural immunity was unavailable as a lesser restrictive 

means. 

204. Not one of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial defined a “ready military workforce.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 29 of 68 PageID 29
30 

205. Not one of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial defined how an accommodation of any of the plaintiffs’ religious 

accommodation requests would harm “a ready military workforce.” 

206. Not one of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial explained how removing plaintiffs from the Coast Guard and leaving 

their duties unperformed advanced “a ready military workforce,” despite stating that each 

plaintiff “play[s] a valuable role” in the Coast Guard workforce and national first responder 

mission. 

207. Not one of LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG 

Marcenelle’s Final Denial set a deadline by which respective plaintiffs had to comply with the 

Coast Guard Mandate. 

208. LTJG Stone, BM1 Jackson, and LTJG Marcenelle were and are willing to 

perform their duties at the highest level and to take regular COVID-19 tests when working inperson, wear a mask, socially distance, and work remotely as appropriate. 

209. LTJG Stone voluntarily changed career fields away from his dream of high-tempo 

operational positions in order to continue serving in a role even more amenable to COVID 

mitigation protocols, including social distancing. 

210. Since the appeal denials were signed nearly four months ago, Plaintiffs have 

continued performing their required duties with no restrictions beyond the prevention protocols 

they had employed since the outbreak of COVID. 

211. The Coast Guard has relaxed prevention protocols during the past several months, 

and generally no longer requires masking, distancing, or asymptomatic testing of service 

members, including unvaccinated service members. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 30 of 68 PageID 30
31 

The Coast Guard has Reprimanded and Initiated Discharge of Plaintiffs 

212. On July 21, 2022, LTJG Stone’s commander ordered him to receive the first dose 

of a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine by July 29, 2022—nearly three months after LTJG 

Stone’s appeal was denied, nearly eleven months after the Coast Guard Mandate issued. The 

commander said the reason for his discharge is that he is not “worldwide deployable.” 

213. On July 22, 2022, LTJG Stone’s commander informed him that the Coast Guard 

had shifted policy from a willingness to lose members via natural attrition (i.e., allowing 

unvaccinated service members to continue serving to the end of their service commitments) to a 

“more proactive stance,” due to the policy prerogatives of the new Commandant (Defendant 

Fagan). 

214. On or about July 25, 2022, the Coast Guard released ALCOAST 270/22 stating 

that the Coast Guard was beginning involuntary separation processing for active duty members 

who were non-compliant with the Coast Guard mandate, and transferring reserve members to the 

Inactive Service List. The policy stated that “vaccination is necessary to be world-wide 

deployable.” 

215. On August 11, 2022, LTJG Stone’s commander reprimanded him for “Willfully 

Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer” and “Failure to Obey other Lawful Order” under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. LTJG Stone’s commander also stated that LTJG Stone 

“had the opportunity and means to follow the order [to receive the first dose of the COVID-19 

vaccine] and failed to do so.” The commander reiterated that the reason for his discharge is lack 

of worldwide deployability. 

216. LTJG Stone acknowledged receipt of the reprimand, but informed his commander 

that he did not believe the order to be lawful in light of its violation of RFRA and the First 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 31 of 68 PageID 31
32 

Amendment as applied to him; and given that a whistleblower had confirmed that vaccine doses 

provided to the Coast Guard were not, in fact, FDA-approved because the doses had been 

manufactured in a different facility from those approved by the FDA. 

217. Just three weeks after LTJG Stone’s vaccination due date, the CDC announced 

that “[r]eceipt of the primary series [of a COVID-19 vaccination]...provides minimal protection 

against infection and transmission.” 

218. LTJG Stone continues to serve and perform his duties without vaccination, more 

than a year after the Coast Guard Mandate issued. 

219. On May 11, 2022, BM1 Jackson’s commander, Lieutenant Commander David 

Zwirblis, ordered him to receive the first dose of a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine by 

May 24, 2022. 

220. Against his religious beliefs and under duress, BM1 Jackson attempted to comply 

with the order, but upon arrival at the vaccination clinic, discovered that the only available 

vaccines were labeled for Emergency Use. BM1 Jackson declined vaccination with an 

Emergency Use drug. 

221. Over six weeks later, on June 30, 2022, BM1 Jackson’s commander reprimanded 

him for “Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer” and “Failure to Obey other 

Lawful Order” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. BM1 Jackson’s commander also 

stated that BM1 Jackson “had the opportunity and means to follow the order [to receive the first 

dose of the COVID-19 vaccine] and failed to do so.” 

222. BM1 Jackson acknowledged receipt of the reprimand, but informed his 

commander that that the clinic did not have FDA-approved COVID-19 doses available for him to 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 32 of 68 PageID 32
33 

comply with his commander’s order to receive “the first dose of a fully FDA-approved COVID19 vaccine.” 

223. On or about August 24, 2022, another of BM1 Jackson’s commanders, Lieutenant 

(LT) S. D. Gunderson, initiated action to discharge BM1 Jackson from the Coast Guard. 

224. LT Gunderson stated that he was initiating discharge proceedings because BM1 

Jackson was not available for worldwide assignment. 

225. LT Gunderson informed BM1 Jackson that BM1 Jackson may expect to 

encounter prejudice in civilian life due to the discharge. 

226. BM1 Jackson is being forced to choose between being involuntarily discharged 

and requesting retirement, despite his desire to continue serving the United States in the Coast 

Guard using his nearly two decades of specialized training and experience. 

227. By refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine, being forced into early retirement, 

and losing his Coast Guard position, BM1 Jackson stands to lose hundreds of thousands of 

dollars in pay, not counting the value of lost benefits including medical benefits. BM1 Jackson 

planned to rely on this compensation in retirement in due course. This financially coercive 

pressure imposes an irreparable substantial burden on his religious exercise. 

228. Especially given the operational tempo of his unit, forcing competent and capable 

unvaccinated service members such as BM1 Jackson to separate would exacerbate the dire 

recruitment and retention shortfalls identified by Dr. Michelle Navarro. 

229. For now, BM1 Jackson continues to serve and perform his duties without 

vaccination, more than a year after the Coast Guard Mandate issued. 

230. On May 27, 2022, LTJG Marcenelle’s commander ordered him to receive the first 

dose of a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine by June 3, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 33 of 68 PageID 33
34 

231. On May 31, 2022, LTJG Marcenelle went to the Naval Health Clinic Charleston 

and requested to receive a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. 

232. Naval Health Clinic Charleston did not have a fully FDA-approved COVID-19 

vaccine available. An employee at the clinic signed a memorandum produced by LTJG 

Marcenelle confirming that no such vaccine was available. 

233. On May 31, 2022, LTJG Marcenelle’s commander, Captain J. D. Cole, 

reprimanded LTJG Marcenelle for “Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer” and 

“Failure to Obey other Lawful Order” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Captain Cole 

also stated that LTJG Marcenelle “had the opportunity and means to follow the order [to receive 

the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine] and failed to do so.” 

234. LTJG Marcenelle acknowledged receipt of the reprimand and provided the 

memorandum showing that the clinic did not have any doses of a fully FDA-approved COVID19 vaccine. Captain Heather Mattern confirmed that LTJG Marcenelle had provided her with this 

documentation in signed, handwritten notes on the reprimand form. 

235. On the same day that he received a formal reprimand, LTJG Marcenelle received 

a Coast Guard Achievement Medal for his superior performance leading missions from April 

2019 to June 2022, including using his unique law-enforcement background to deescalate a 

dangerous conflict with a boat captain. 

236. In addition to signing LTJG Marcenelle’s formal reprimand for LTJG Marcenelle 

being unvaccinated, Captain J.D. Cole also signed the Coast Guard Achievement Medal for 

LTJG Marcenelle’s meritorious service performed while unvaccinated. 

237. LTJG Marcenelle continues to serve and perform his duties without vaccination, 

more than a year after the Coast Guard Mandate issued. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 34 of 68 PageID 34
35 

238. Service members approved to participate in the accommodation program (e.g., 

service members with medical or administrative exemptions for reasons other than religious 

belief) are permitted to continue serving without vaccination—presumably as long as they follow 

whatever current protection protocols are prescribed by Coast Guard leadership—without forced 

separation, leave restrictions, schooling restrictions, or promotion restrictions. 

239. Unlike those with medical and administrative accommodations, and unlike 

vaccinated service members who have “minimal protection against infection and transmission,” 

the Coast Guard continues to threaten plaintiffs’ right to future employment, and obstinately 

accepts the loss of fully trained and equipped officers and enlisted in the midst of a recruiting 

and retention crisis affecting all branches of the armed forces. 

240. By refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine and losing their Coast Guard 

positions, Plaintiffs stand to lose a significant amount in salary and significant benefits. 

Plaintiffs’ highly specialized training in maritime law enforcement operations cannot easily 

transfer into the civilian sector. 

241. Further, if any of the plaintiffs are discharged, they stand to lose their health 

insurance and opportunities for advancement and training. 

242. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has conducted research on the 

treatment of “moral injury” in veterans. 

243. According to the VA, moral injury occurs when “people . . . perpetrate, fail to 

prevent, or witness events that contradict deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” 

244. Moral injury includes acts of commission, such as when a service member is 

compelled to do something against his beliefs, and acts of omission, such as when a service 

member fails to do something in line with their beliefs. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 35 of 68 PageID 35
36 

245. Moral injury is defined as “the distressing psychological, behavioral, social, and 

sometimes spiritual aftermath of exposure to such events” of commission or omission. 

246. The VA notes that the guilt, shame, and sense of betrayal triggered by moral 

injury are associated with severe depression, functional impairment, suicidal ideation, and 

substance abuse. 

247. Service members compelled by senior leadership to force subordinates to comply 

with the Coast Guard vaccine mandate may experience moral injury, regardless of their own 

personal vaccination status. 

248. The Coast Guard Mandate has lowered Plaintiffs’ morale as service members, 

because the Mandate has forced them to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and 

their livelihood. 

249. The Coast Guard Mandate has lowered the morale of numerous other service 

members for the same reasons. 

250. The Coast Guard Mandate has greatly damaged unit cohesion and morale by 

forcing service members to ostracize their peers and punish their subordinates on the sole basis 

of vaccination, while ignoring individual rights, capabilities, expertise, and relationships. 

251. The Coast Guard Mandate forces service members to suffer moral injury in the 

process. 

252. RFRA and the Constitution prohibit Defendants from forcing Plaintiffs to choose 

between their religious beliefs and their employment. 

253. The Coast Guard’s process purporting to protect religious rights protected by 

federal law and the Constitution is both illusory and insincere.

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 36 of 68 PageID 36
37 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

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

federal statutory and constitutional law. 

255. The proposed Class consists of all members of the United States Coast Guard who 

(a) are subject to a mandate of the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or 

Coast Guard to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a request for religious 

accommodation regarding such mandate based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have 

received or will receive a purported final denial of such request from the Department of Defense, 

Department of Homeland Security, or Coast Guard. 

256. This lawsuit is properly maintained as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). 

257. The Class satisfies the “numerosity” requirement under Rule 23(a)(1). 

258. The exact number of members of the Class is not precisely known, but there are 

more than 1,200 members of the Coast Guard who have submitted religious accommodation 

requests regarding the Mandate and at least 881 members of the Coast Guard to date who have 

received purported final denials of their religious accommodation requests. 

259. Joinder of all individual Class members is impracticable. 

260. The Class satisfies the “commonality” requirement under Rule 23(a)(2). 

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

of the legal rights sought to be enforced uniformly by Plaintiffs and the Class members. 

262. Similar or identical constitutional and statutory violations, processes, policies, 

practices, and harm are at issue with respect to each Class member. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 37 of 68 PageID 37
38 

263. The harm sustained by Class members flows in each instance from a common 

nucleus of operative facts, including: Defendants’ processes, policies, or practices of across-theboard denial of all religious accommodation requests, Defendants’ failure to conduct 

individualized assessments of religious accommodation requests, and the lack of factual basis for 

Defendants’ claim that the Mandates satisfy strict scrutiny. 

264. Each instance of harm suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class members has directly 

resulted from a common course of illegal conduct. Individual questions, if any, pale in 

comparison to the numerous common questions of fact and law presented in this lawsuit. 

265. Determination of the following common questions of law or fact will resolve in 

one stroke the following issues that are central to the validity of Plaintiffs’ and each Class 

member’s claims: 

a. Whether the Coast Guard’s process that supposedly protects religious rights as required 

by RFRA and the First Amendment is illusory and insincere. 

b. Whether the religious accommodation requests the Coast Guard claims to have approved 

are for service members already slated for separation or retirement. 

c. Whether the Coast Guard has a policy, practice, or procedure of not conducting “to the 

person” assessment to which service members are entitled under RFRA and/or the First 

Amendment. 

d. Whether the Coast Guard can demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in denying any 

or all religious exemptions from the Mandates while willingly granting exemptions for 

secular purposes. 

e. Whether the Coast Guard can demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in denying any 

religious exemptions from the Mandates while leaving appreciable damage to that 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 38 of 68 PageID 38
39 

supposedly compelling interest unprohibited, including allowing unvaccinated members 

of the Coast Guard Auxiliary and Coast Guard dependents into Coast Guard spaces, and 

failing to investigate for fraudulent vaccination records. 

f. Whether the Coast Guard can demonstrate that vaccination of a religious service member 

is the least restrictive means of preventing the spread of COVID-19 when the Coast 

Guard is almost universally vaccinated, COVID-19 vaccination does not prevent 

COVID-19 infection or transmission, COVID-19 cases hit all time highs despite the 

almost universal vaccination, the CDC and Defendants recognize the existence of natural 

immunity, and the Coast Guard permits alternative prevention measures for secular 

objectors to vaccination. 

266. The Class satisfies the “typicality” requirement under Rule 23(a)(3). 

267. The claims alleged by the Plaintiffs and the resultant harms are typical of the 

claims of each member of the Class. 

268. All absent Class members have been injured, or are at risk of injury, as a result of 

the same processes, policies, or practices. 

269. The Class satisfies the “adequacy” requirement under Rule 23(a)(4). 

270. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 

271. Plaintiffs have a strong interest in vindicating not only their own rights but those 

of their fellow service members. 

272. There are no conflicts of interest between the Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members. 

273. Plaintiffs’ counsel will adequately prosecute the action. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 39 of 68 PageID 39
40 

274. Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience litigating class actions, other complex 

cases, and the types of claims asserted in this action. 

275. Plaintiffs’ counsel is knowledgeable of the applicable law. 

276. Plaintiffs’ counsel has committed sufficient resources to represent the Class. 

277. Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). 

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

Class, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief for the Class. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. 

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

paragraphs of this Complaint. 

280. RFRA states that the government shall not substantially burden a person’s 

exercise of religion even by means of a rule of general applicability. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. 

281. RFRA protects 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)). 

282. 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. 

283. The Mandates acknowledge that RFRA protects Coast Guard service members. 

Exercise of Religion 

284. Plaintiffs sincerely believe that the exercise of their religion prevents them from 

submitting to injection of any of the presently available COVID-19 vaccines. 

285. Defendants acknowledge the sincerity and reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ belief that 

their exercise of religion prevents them from receiving vaccination. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 40 of 68 PageID 40
41 

286. More than 1,200 other Coast Guard service members share Plaintiffs’ religious 

objection to being vaccinated for COVID-19. 

287. The government and reviewing courts may not question whether sincerely held 

religious beliefs are reasonable. 

Substantial Burden 

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

substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion. 42 U.S.C. § 200bb-1(b). 

289. A person’s exercise of religion is substantially burdened whenever a measure 

imposes substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his or her behavior and to violate his or 

her beliefs. 

290. The Mandates impose on Plaintiffs and all service members whose religious 

exercise prevents vaccination for COVID-19 the choice between violating their religious beliefs 

and ending their career and livelihood. 

291. Forcing people to violate their religious beliefs or lose their employment is a 

substantial burden on their religious beliefs. 

292. The Coast Guard has threatened, and carried out threats, to punish service 

members by denying them schooling, promotion, and assignments. 

293. These adverse impacts can have permanent and lasting effects on the careers of 

service members. 

294. These adverse impacts, currently being imposed on more than 1,200 service 

members in the Coast Guard alone, impose substantial pressure on each religious objector to 

vaccination to modify his or her behavior and to violate his or her beliefs. 

Strict Scrutiny 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 41 of 68 PageID 41
42 

295. Under RFRA, the Mandates are subject to strict scrutiny because they impose the 

above substantial burdens on the religious exercise of service members. 42 U.S.C. § 200bb-1(b). 

296. Strict scrutiny requires that, before imposing a substantial burden on a person’s 

exercise of religion, the government must demonstrate that 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. § 200bb-1(b). 

297. The Mandates fail strict scrutiny, both as applied to Plaintiffs and other Class 

members and facially as Defendants have interpreted them to disallow any religious 

accommodation. 

No Compelling Interest 

298. Defendants may not rely on generalized or broadly formulated interests to justify 

requiring Plaintiffs or any service member to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in violation of their 

religious beliefs. 

299. Defendants must establish that they have a compelling governmental interest in 

denying an accommodation to each Plaintiff and each member of the Class in particular. 

300. Defendants do not have a compelling governmental interest in requiring each 

Plaintiff and Class member, or every Plaintiff and Class member, to receive a COVID-19 

vaccine. 

301. Letters denying or purporting to deny Plaintiffs a religious accommodation cited 

only generalized interests, present in every case, of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order 

and discipline, and health and safety. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 42 of 68 PageID 42
43 

302. Letters denying or purporting to deny Plaintiffs a religious accommodation 

offered no consideration of Plaintiffs’ particular circumstances. This is insufficient to establish a 

compelling governmental interest in requiring Plaintiffs to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. 

303. Plaintiffs have all developed natural immunity to COVID-19. 

304. Defendants have identified nothing to support a compelling interest in denying 

Plaintiffs in particular an accommodation from the Mandates. 

305. Although the Mandates invite service members to apply for religious exemptions, 

the enforcement record shows that Defendants have adopted a policy of denying all religious 

accommodations without considering particular circumstances. 

306. RFRA requires that Defendants grant accommodation in every case where 

denying one does not pass strict scrutiny. 

307. To enforce a law without granting any religious accommodations, Defendants 

must establish that denying every possible religious accommodation passes strict scrutiny. 

308. Defendants cannot establish a compelling interest in denying every religious 

accommodation to the Mandates. 

309. Defendants cannot establish a compelling interest in denying any religious 

accommodation to the Mandates. 

310. There can be no compelling interest justifying substantially burdening religious 

practice when a government measure leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest 

unprohibited. 

311. Defendants have granted many accommodations for medical and administrative 

reasons. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 43 of 68 PageID 43
44 

312. Allowance of accommodations for reasons other than religious ones demonstrates 

that Defendants can tolerate the risk posed by some service members remaining unvaccinated. 

313. Defendants’ allowance of case-by-case exceptions to the “worldwide 

deployability” policy shows that it lacks a compelling interest in categorically denying all 

requests for religious accommodations from the COVID-19 vaccine Mandates. 

314. Defendants do not require vaccination of Coast Guard Auxiliary members, 

Inactive Reservists, and Coast Guard dependents, all of whom maintain access to Coast Guard 

facilities and often work, dine, and even live alongside active duty and reserve members. 

315. Defendants do not and cannot ensure that Coast Guard members tracked as 

“vaccinated” outside of a Coast Guard clinic were truly vaccinated, despite tremendous financial 

motivations and low risk of detection for Coast Guard members who submit fraudulent 

vaccination records. 

316. Defendants’ delay in imposing the Mandates also belies any claim that their 

interest in enforcing them is compelling. 

317. The Mandates were issued months after vaccines became available and months 

after the Department of Justice formally advised that government entities could impose 

mandatory vaccination requirements. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Whether 

Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a 

Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization,” July 6, 2021 (slip op.), 

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1415446/download. 

318. Defendants have allowed Plaintiffs to remain active in the Coast Guard for more 

than a year after issuing the Mandates. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 44 of 68 PageID 44
45 

319. In the months since a vaccine-evading strain of SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged, risk 

of COVID-19 transmission among service members has greatly decreased due to high levels of 

previous infection among the population. 

320. In the months since a vaccine-evading strain of SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged, risk 

of COVID-19 infection among service members has greatly decreased due to vaccination and/or 

previous infection among the population. 

321. As of September 2022, the risk of medically significant disease, hospitalization, 

and death from COVID-19 has been greatly reduced. 

322. Any compelling interest in mandating vaccination has decreased accordingly. 

323. Defendants have not established and cannot establish a compelling interest in a 

military or Coast Guard-wide policy of denying religious accommodations to the Mandates, 

because RFRA requires that Defendants show a compelling interest to refuse each individual’s 

accommodation in particular, because Defendants delayed the Mandates for months, because 

Defendants have granted accommodations for other reasons, and because the risks to the Coast 

Guard of and from infection and transmission of COVID-19 have greatly diminished. 

Not in Furtherance of Any Interest 

324. The Mandates fail strict scrutiny because they do not in fact further the Coast 

Guard’s asserted interest in mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or 

health and safety. 

325. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted government interest in mission 

accomplishment, because the Mandates are on a course to eliminate over 1,200 service members 

in the Coast Guard in the midst of a record-setting retention and recruiting crisis, while 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 45 of 68 PageID 45
46 

consuming thousands of man-hours in the execution of an illusory process that yields the same 

result in all circumstances. 

326. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted government interest in unit 

cohesion because they have effected moral injury and ostracization of unvaccinated service 

members. 

327. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted government interest in good order 

and discipline but instead have been an occasion for revealing the Coast Guard’s inability to 

abide by its own mandatory regulations in reviewing religious accommodation requests. 

328. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted compelling government interest in 

health and safety because near-universal vaccination pursuant to the Mandates has not prevented 

the Coast Guard from experiencing record high COVID-19 case rates. 

Not the Least Restrictive Means 

329. The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding in that it requires 

the government to show it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal. 

330. So long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not 

burden religion, it must do so. 

331. This standard requires Defendants to show that measures less restrictive of 

protected religious practice could not address their interest in reducing the spread of COVID. 

332. Requiring Plaintiffs to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is not the least restrictive 

means Defendants could have employed to serve any compelling interest. 

333. Plaintiffs have worked successfully for the Coast Guard, fulfilling their job 

responsibilities completely, throughout the pandemic, including while vaccines have been 

available. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 46 of 68 PageID 46
47 

334. Defendants’ denials of Plaintiffs’ religious accommodation provide no 

explanation of why they cannot continue to fulfill their duties taking the various preventive 

measures implemented during the height of the pandemic. 

335. The Coast Guard stated, without explanation, that Plaintiffs’ work cannot be 

accommodated with the use of distancing measures, masking, hygiene requirements, and/or 

regular testing, even though those with medical and administrative accommodations and clinicaltrial participants are permitted to work with such measures in place. 

336. Defendants have not shown that accommodating Plaintiffs remaining 

unvaccinated would increase their costs in any degree, given the continued presence of medically 

accommodated unvaccinated service members and the exemption for clinical-trial participants. 

337. If accommodations have little or no marginal cost, mandating that Plaintiffs be 

vaccinated cannot be the least restrictive means of preventing the spread of COVID-19. 

338. At the very least, Defendants have an obligation to demonstrate that universal 

vaccination—except for medical and administrative accommodation, exemption for clinical-trial 

participation, exclusion of Coast Guard Auxiliary, Inactive Reserves, and Coast Guard 

dependents—is the least restrictive way of pursuing their interests. That requires demonstrating 

why other paths to the same goal are inferior, which Defendants cannot do. 

339. Vaccinating someone with natural immunity, like Plaintiffs, does not minimize 

any risk to other service members. 

340. Not only is mandatory vaccination in Plaintiffs’ cases not the least restrictive 

means of serving Defendants’ interest in limiting the spread of COVID, vaccination does not 

serve that interest in any way at all. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 47 of 68 PageID 47
48 

341. The denial of all service members’ religious accommodations is not the least 

restrictive means to serve Defendants’ interests. 

342. Universal denial of religious accommodations invites the nearly simultaneous 

separation of thousands of service members across the DOD and DHS, including more than 

1,200 service members from the Coast Guard alone, and suggests an impermissible hostility to 

religion and an impermissible preference for medically-compromised military members over 

religious military members. 

343. In denying Plaintiffs’ religious accommodation, Defendants claimed generally to 

be serving the interests of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and health 

and safety. These are not sufficiently compelling interests to satisfy strict scrutiny. 

344. Even if they were sufficiently compelling interests to satisfy strict scrutiny, 

Defendants have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that their interests in military 

readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and health and safety would be served, rather 

than harmed, by reducing many thousands of service members, including 1,200+ in the Coast 

Guard alone, from their ranks. 

345. To survive strict scrutiny, Defendants must show that separating 1,200+ religious 

objectors from the Coast Guard, with concomitant loss of trained personnel and enormous 

administrative burden, better serves Defendants’ interests than accommodating these same 

service members as unvaccinated service members. 

346. In Plaintiffs’ case, accommodating their continued service has little or no 

marginal financial cost to Defendants. 

347. In each Class member’s case, Defendants cannot show that alternative measures 

of preventing the spread of COVID-19 that do not burden free exercise are insufficient when 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 48 of 68 PageID 48
49 

Defendants permit such alternative measures to allow the continued service of service members 

who are exempt from the Mandates for secular purposes. 

348. Plaintiffs’ early separations would cause the Coast Guard administrative 

difficulty, along with the impact of losing many productive years of service from service 

members with training, experience, and seniority. 

349. The Coast Guard cannot replace seasoned servicemembers having many years of 

experience with new recruits overnight. 

350. A blanket policy of denying religious accommodations and ending the careers of 

1,200+ service members cannot credibly be described as the least restrictive means of serving the 

interests Defendants have identified. 

351. The Mandates are also not the least restrictive means to serve Defendants’ interest 

in reducing the spread of COVID-19 or increasing the safety of service members, because it is by 

no means settled that the vaccinations Defendants insist upon actually add to the safety of the 

service members. 

352. Mandatory vaccination is also not the least restrictive means to serve Defendants’ 

interest in reducing the spread of COVID-19 because it is by no means settled that vaccinations 

are more effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 than alternative measures that do not 

burden free exercise, many of which the Coast Guard has adopted to accommodate the continued 

service of service members with secular exemptions from the Mandates. 

353. Denying each Class member’s request for religious accommodation is not a 

necessary measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19 because the Coast Guard is otherwise 

nearly universally vaccinated. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 49 of 68 PageID 49
50 

354. Defendants’ policy of denying all religious accommodation requests no matter the 

circumstances is vastly out of step with policies in the rest of the country, including in the 

countless workplaces across the country that currently provide religious accommodations 

without any evidence of causing harm. 

355. Defendants’ policy of denying all religious accommodation requests is willfully 

blind to the fact that sister services, including the Air Force, Marines, and even the Navy, 

currently perform their often substantially similar missions without significant interruption due 

to injunctions currently prohibiting discharge of service members based on vaccination status. 

356. The Navy has been enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate 

against all religious Navy service members since March 28, 2022—when this Court entered the 

injunction—and there is no evidence that that injunction has caused harm. The Navy has not 

filed a motion in this Court seeking vacation or modification of the injunction based on any 

changed circumstances. 

357. The Air Force has been restrained and enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 

vaccine mandate against all religious Air Force service members since July 14, 2022—when the 

Southern District of Ohio entered a TRO, and then the court issued a preliminary injunction on 

July 27—and there is no evidence that that TRO and injunction have caused harm. The Air Force 

has not filed a motion in that court seeking vacation or modification of the injunction based on 

any changed circumstances. 

358. The Marine Corps has been enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine 

mandate against all religious Marine Corp service members since August 18, 2022—when the 

Middle District of Florida entered the injunction—and there is no evidence that that injunction 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 50 of 68 PageID 50
51 

has caused harm. The Air Force has not filed a motion in that court seeking vacation or 

modification of the injunction based on any changed circumstances. 

359. Defendants cannot establish that the Mandates are the least restrictive means of 

pursuing a compelling interest. 

RFRA Relief 

360. Defendants’ Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of their fellow 

service members under RFRA. 

361. Because of Defendants’ policy and actions, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered 

irreparable harm and are entitled to relief. 

362. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their 

rights under RFRA to the free exercise of religion and an order restraining and enjoining 

Defendants from denying their requests for religious accommodation, from forcing them to retire 

or separate from the military, and from taking any other illegal adverse action against them based 

on their unvaccinated status. Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, 

including their reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment 

U.S. Const. amend. I 

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

paragraphs of this Complaint. 

Exercise of Religion 

364. Plaintiffs sincerely believe that the exercise of their religion prevents them from 

submitting to injection of any of the presently available COVID-19 vaccines. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 51 of 68 PageID 51
52 

365. Defendants acknowledge the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ belief that their exercise of 

religion prevents them from receiving vaccination. 

366. More than 1,200 other Coast Guard service members share Plaintiffs’ religious 

objection to being vaccinated for COVID-19. 

The government and reviewing courts may not question whether sincerely held religious 

beliefs are reasonable. Not Neutral and Generally Applicable 

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

enacting laws burdening religious exercise that are not both neutral and generally applicable, 

unless they are narrowly tailored to a compelling a governmental interest. 

368. A law that is not neutral or not generally applicable and burdens religious exercise 

must satisfy strict scrutiny. 

The Mandates are not generally applicable. 

369. A law is not generally applicable if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting 

secular conduct that undermines the government’s asserted interests in a similar way. 

370. The Mandates allow service members to remain unvaccinated for medical and 

administrative reasons or if they participate in a clinical trial while disallowing service members 

from refraining for religious reasons. 

371. Even assuming a Plaintiff or any other Class member poses a risk by remaining 

unvaccinated, such risk would be no greater than the risk posed by other accommodated 

personnel. 

372. Since Defendants accept a risk from people who are unvaccinated for secular 

reasons but not from people with religious reasons, the Mandates are not generally applicable. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 52 of 68 PageID 52
53 

373. Where a law includes a system of individualized accommodations based on 

particular circumstances, the government may not refuse to grant accommodations on the basis 

of religious hardship. 

374. The Mandates allow accommodations from the vaccine mandate on the basis of 

several individualized situations, including for “needs of the service.” 

375. Defendants have shown that accommodations based on medical and 

administrative circumstances and exemptions for clinical-trial participation are available, but 

they intend to deny all applications for religious accommodations. 

376. Defendants have granted medical and administrative accommodations. 

377. A mandate to which commanding officers grant accommodations for other 

reasons but not on the basis of religious belief is not generally applicable. 

Strict Scrutiny 

378. A law that is not neutral or not generally applicable and burdens religious exercise 

must satisfy strict scrutiny. 

379. The Mandates fail strict scrutiny, both as applied to Plaintiffs and as applied to all 

service members. 

No Compelling Interest 

380. Defendants may not rely on generalized or broadly formulated interests to justify 

requiring Plaintiffs or any service member to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in violation of their 

religious beliefs. 

381. Defendants must establish that they have a compelling governmental interest in 

denying an accommodation to each Plaintiff and each Class member in particular. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 53 of 68 PageID 53
54 

382. Defendants do not have a compelling governmental interest in requiring each 

Plaintiff and Class member, or every Plaintiff and Class member, to receive a COVID-19 

vaccine. 

383. Letters denying or purporting to deny Plaintiffs a religious accommodation cited 

only generalized interests, present in every case, of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, 

and discipline, and health and safety. 

384. Letters denying and purporting to deny Plaintiffs a religious accommodation 

offered no consideration of Plaintiffs’ particular circumstances. This is insufficient to establish a 

compelling governmental interest in requiring Plaintiffs to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. 

385. Plaintiffs have all developed natural immunity to COVID-19. 

386. Plaintiffs have effectively fulfilled their service responsibilities throughout the 

pandemic without putting anyone at risk, even while actually infected with COVID-19. 

387. Defendants have identified nothing to support a compelling interest in denying 

Plaintiffs in particular an accommodation from the Mandates. 

388. Defendants cannot rely on generalized statements of interest to justify denying 

Plaintiffs an accommodation, and Defendants can identify nothing to support a compelling 

interest in denying Plaintiffs in particular an accommodation. 

389. Defendants have not established and cannot establish a compelling interest in 

denying a religious accommodation to every Class member. 

390. Defendants have not established and cannot establish a compelling interest in 

denying a religious accommodation to any individual Class member, including any Plaintiff. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 54 of 68 PageID 54
55 

391. There can be no compelling interest justifying substantially burdening religious 

practice when a government measure leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest 

unprohibited. 

392. Defendants have granted accommodations to the Mandates for administrative and 

medical reasons. 

393. Allowance of exceptions for other reasons demonstrates that Defendants can 

tolerate the risk posed by some service members remaining unvaccinated. Defendants cannot 

simultaneously claim they have a compelling interest in denying accommodations to the same 

Mandates to protect the exercise of religion. 

394. Defendants’ allowance of exceptions to the Coast Guard’s “worldwide 

deployability” policy shows that they lack a compelling interest in denying all requests for 

religious accommodations from the Mandates on the alleged ground that requesting service 

members are “non-worldwide deployable.” 

395. Defendants also do not require vaccination of Coast Guard Auxiliary members, 

Inactive Reservists, and Coast Guard dependents, all of whom maintain access to Coast Guard 

facilities and often work, dine, and even live alongside active duty and reserve members. 

396. Defendants do not and cannot ensure that Coast Guard members tracked as 

“vaccinated” outside of a Coast Guard clinic were truly vaccinated, despite tremendous financial 

motivations and low risk of detection for Coast Guard members who submit fraudulent 

vaccination records. 

397. Defendants’ delay in imposing the Mandates also belies any claim that their 

interest in enforcing them is compelling. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 55 of 68 PageID 55
56 

398. The Mandates were issued months after vaccines became available and months 

after the Department of Justice formally advised that government entities could impose 

mandatory vaccination requirements. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Whether 

Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a 

Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization,” July 6, 2021 (slip op.), 

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1415446/download. 

399. In the months since a vaccine-evading strain of SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged (i.e., 

the Omicron variant), risk of COVID-19 transmission among service members has greatly 

decreased due in part to high levels of previous infection among the population. 

400. In the months since a vaccine-evading strain of SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged, risk 

of COVID-19 infection among service members has greatly decreased due in part to vaccination 

and/or previous infection among the population. 

401. As of March 2022 (i.e., when the Omicron variant became the predominant 

strain), the risk of medically significant disease, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 has 

been greatly reduced. 

402. Any compelling interest in mandating vaccination has decreased accordingly. 

403. Defendants have not established and cannot establish a compelling interest in a 

military or Coast Guard-wide policy of denying religious accommodations to the Mandates, 

because Defendants delayed the Mandates for months, because Defendants have granted 

accommodations for other reasons, and because the risks to the Coast Guard of and from 

infection and transmission of Covid-19 have greatly diminished. 

Not in Furtherance of Any Interest 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 56 of 68 PageID 56
57 

404. The Mandates fail strict scrutiny because they do not in fact further the Coast 

Guard’s asserted interests in mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, 

or health and safety. 

405. The Coast Guard’s willingness to grant secular exemptions but not religious 

exemptions belies any claimed compelling interest. 

406. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted government interest in mission 

accomplishment, because the Mandates are on a course to eliminate over 1,200 service members 

in the Coast Guard in the midst of a record-setting retention and recruiting crisis, in the process 

consuming thousands of man-hours in the execution of an illusory process that yields the same 

result in all circumstances. 

407. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted government interest in unit 

cohesion because they have effected moral injury and ostracization of unvaccinated service 

members. 

408. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted government interest in good order 

and discipline but instead have been an occasion for revealing the Coast Guard’s inability to 

abide by its own mandatory regulations in reviewing religious accommodation requests. 

409. The Mandates have not furthered the asserted compelling government interest in 

health and safety because near-universal vaccination pursuant to the Mandates has not prevented 

the Coast Guard from experiencing record high COVID-19 case rates. 

Not the Least Restrictive Means 

410. The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding in that it requires 

the government to show it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 57 of 68 PageID 57
58 

411. So long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not 

burden religion, it must do so. 

412. This standard requires Defendants to show that measures less restrictive of 

protected religious exercise could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID-19. 

413. Requiring Plaintiffs to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is not the least restrictive 

means Defendants could have employed to serve any compelling interest. 

414. Plaintiffs have worked successfully and with distinction for the Coast Guard, 

fulfilling their job responsibilities completely, throughout the pandemic, including while 

vaccines have been available. 

415. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ religious accommodation provide no explanation 

of why Plaintiffs cannot continue to fulfill their duties in taking the various preventative 

measures implemented during the height of the pandemic. 

416. The Coast Guard stated, without explanation, that Plaintiffs’ work cannot be 

accommodated with the use of distancing measures, remote work, masking, hygiene 

requirements, and/or regular testing, even though those with medical and administrative 

accommodations and clinical-trial participants are permitted to work with such measures in 

place. 

417. Defendants have not shown that accommodating Plaintiffs remaining 

unvaccinated would increase their costs in any degree, given the continued presence of medically 

accommodated unvaccinated service members and the exemption for clinical-trial participants. 

418. If accommodations have little or no marginal cost, mandating that Plaintiffs or 

any individual Class member be vaccinated cannot be the least restrictive means of preventing 

the spread of COVID-19. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 58 of 68 PageID 58
59 

419. At the very least, Defendants have an obligation to demonstrate that their policy 

of universal vaccination—except for medical and administrative accommodation and exemption 

for clinical-trial participation, exclusion of Coast Guard Auxiliary, Inactive Reserves, and Coast 

Guard dependents—is the least restrictive way of pursuing their interest. That requires 

demonstrating why other paths to the same goal are inferior, which Defendants cannot do. 

420. Vaccinating someone with natural immunity, like Plaintiffs, does not minimize 

any risk to other service members. 

421. Not only is mandatory vaccination in Plaintiffs’ cases not the “least restrictive 

means” of serving Defendants’ interest in limiting the spread of COVID-19, vaccination does not 

serve that interest in any way at all. 

422. Nor is the denial of religious accommodations to all Class members the least 

restrictive means to serve Defendants’ interests. 

423. Universal denial of religious accommodations invites the nearly simultaneous 

separation of thousands of service members across the DOD and DHS, including more than 

1,200 service members from the Coast Guard alone, and suggests an impermissible hostility to 

religion and an impermissible preference for medically compromised military members over 

religious military members. 

424. In denying Plaintiffs’ religious accommodation, Defendants claimed generally to 

be serving the interests of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, and discipline. These are 

not sufficiently compelling interests to satisfy strict scrutiny. 

425. Even if they were sufficiently compelling interests to satisfy strict scrutiny, 

Defendants have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that their interests in “military 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 59 of 68 PageID 59
60 

readiness, unit cohesion, good order, and discipline” would be served, rather than harmed, by 

separating thousands of service members, including 1,200+ in the Coast Guard alone. 

426. To survive strict scrutiny, Defendants must show that separating the thousands of 

religious objectors from the military, with concomitant loss of trained personnel and enormous 

administrative burden, better serves the military’s interests than accommodating these same 

service members as unvaccinated service members. 

427. Accommodating Plaintiffs’ continued service has little or no marginal financial 

cost to Defendants. 

428. In each Class member’s case, Defendants cannot show that alternative measures 

of preventing the spread of COVID-19 that do not burden free exercise are insufficient when 

Defendants permit such alternative measures to allow the continued service of service members 

who are exempt from the Mandates for secular purposes. 

429. Plaintiffs’ early separations would cause the Coast Guard administrative 

difficulty, along with the impact of losing many productive years of service from service 

members with training, experience, and seniority. 

430. A blanket policy of denying religious accommodations and ending the careers of 

1,200+ service members cannot credibly be described as the least restrictive means of serving the 

interests Defendants have identified. 

431. The Mandates are also not the least restrictive means to serve Defendants’ interest 

in reducing the spread of COVID-19 or increasing the safety of service members, because it is by 

no means settled that the vaccinations Defendants insist upon actually add to the safety of the 

service members. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 60 of 68 PageID 60
61 

432. Mandatory vaccination is also not the least restrictive means to serve Defendants’ 

interest in reducing the spread of COVID-19 because it is by no means settled that vaccinations 

are more effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19 than alternative measures that do not 

burden free exercise, many of which the Coast Guard has adopted to accommodate the continued 

service of service members with secular exemptions from the Mandates. 

433. Denying each Class member’s request for religious accommodation is not a 

necessary measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19 because the Coast Guard is otherwise 

nearly universally vaccinated. 

434. Defendants’ policy of denying all religious accommodation requests no matter the 

circumstances is vastly out of step with policies in the rest of the country, including in the 

countless workplaces across the country that currently provide religious accommodations 

without any evidence of causing harm. 

435. Defendants’ policy of denying all religious accommodation requests is willfully 

blind to the fact that sister services, including the Air Force, Marines, and even the Navy, 

currently perform their often substantially similar missions without significant interruption due 

to injunctions currently prohibiting discharge of service members based on vaccination status. 

436. The Navy has been enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate 

against all religious Navy service members since March 28, 2022—when this Court entered the 

injunction—and there is no evidence that that injunction has caused harm. The Navy has not 

made a motion in this Court seeking vacation or modification of the injunction based on any 

changed circumstances. 

437. The Air Force has been restrained and enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 

vaccine mandate against all religious Air Force service members since July 14, 2022—when the 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 61 of 68 PageID 61
62 

Southern District of Ohio entered a TRO, and then the court issued a preliminary injunction on 

July 27—and there is no evidence that that TRO and injunction have caused harm. The Air Force 

has not made a motion in that court seeking vacation or modification of the injunction based on 

any changed circumstances. 

438. The Marine Corps has been enjoined from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine 

mandate against all religious Marine Corps service members since August 18, 2022—when the 

Middle District of Florida entered the injunction—and there is no evidence that that injunction 

has caused harm. The Air Force has not made a motion in that court seeking vacation or 

modification of the injunction based on any changed circumstances. 

439. Defendants cannot establish that the Mandates are the least restrictive means of 

pursuing a compelling interest. 

The Mandates are not neutral 

440. Defendants’ actions in this case, including their categorical denial of virtually all 

religious accommodation requests while allowing secular exemptions, also fail to uphold the 

First Amendment’s promise of government neutrality towards religion. 

First Amendment relief 

441. Accordingly, Defendants’ Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of all 

Class members under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

442. Because of Defendants’ policy and actions, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered 

irreparable harm and are entitled to relief. 

443. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated their 

rights under the First Amendment to the free exercise of religion and an order restraining and 

enjoining Defendants from denying their requests for religious accommodation, from forcing 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 62 of 68 PageID 62
63 

them to retire or separate from the military, and from taking any other illegal adverse action 

against them based on their unvaccinated status. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 701-06 

(Denying Opportunity to Seek Exemption Based on Natural Immunity) 

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

paragraphs of this Complaint. 

445. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), a court shall “hold unlawful 

and set aside” any agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 

otherwise not in accordance with law” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D). 

446. The Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the Coast 

Guard are “agencies” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). 

447. The Mandates are each a “rule” under the APA reviewable under the APA. 

5 U.S.C. § 551(4). 

448. Defendants’ wrongful actions are “agency actions” reviewable under the APA. 

5 U.S.C. §§ 551(13), 704. 

449. With their Mandates, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs and other service 

members including all Class Members the opportunity to seek, under COMDTINST M6230.4, a 

medical exemption based on their natural immunity. 

450. The Court should hold unlawful and set aside the Mandates, because they are 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and without 

observance of procedure required by law. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 63 of 68 PageID 63
64 

451. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of all Class Members 

under the APA. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 701-06 and/or RFRA 

(Purported Final Denials Not Issued by Someone with Authority to Issue Them) 

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

paragraphs of this Complaint. 

453. COMDTINST 1000.15 is a “rule” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). 

454. LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and LTJG Marcenelle’s 

Final Denial are “orders” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 551(6). 

455. COMDTINST 1000.15 12(j)(2) requires that a service member may appeal an 

initial denial of a religious accommodation request to the official in the chain of command or 

chain of supervision one level above the officer or official who denied the initial request. The 

appellate authority must act on the appeal. 

456. Captain Anthony Williams issued LTJG Stone’s Initial Denial, BM1 Jackson’s 

Initial Denial, and LTJG Marcenelle’s Initial Denial. 

457. In May 2022, when LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final Denial, and 

LTJG Marcenelle’s Final Denial were signed, Dr. Navarro was the official in the chain of 

command or chain of supervision one level above Captain Anthony Williams. 

458. Dr. Navarro did not sign LTJG Stone’s Final Denial, BM1 Jackson’s Final 

Denial, or LTJG Marcenelle’s Final Denial. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 64 of 68 PageID 64
65 

459. None of the multiple officials who issued the purported final denials of Plaintiffs’ 

appeals were in the chain of command of Captain Anthony Williams when the final denials were 

signed. 

460. Defendants’ purported orders denying religious accommodations to Plaintiffs 

wrongfully were not issued in accordance with Defendants’ own mandatory rules and were 

issued in excess of authority. 

461. Defendants’ wrongful orders failing to comply with the mandatory rules are 

“agency actions” reviewable under the APA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(13), 704. 

462. The Court should hold unlawful and set aside the Plaintiffs’ purported final 

denials, because they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in 

accordance with law, and without observance of procedure required by law. 

463. The purported final denials issued to Plaintiffs are ultra vires and void. 

464. Defendants’ purported final denials substantially burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held 

religious beliefs. By taking adverse action against Plaintiffs based on the void purported final 

denials, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs their legal rights including their religious freedom 

rights. The void purported final denials further no compelling interest governmental interest, and 

the void purported final denials are not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling 

governmental interest. 

465. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the APA and/or RFRA. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 65 of 68 PageID 65
66 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against 

Defendants and provide the following relief: 

1. an order that Plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2); 

2. a declaratory judgment that the Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ 

rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; 

3. a declaratory judgment that the Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ 

rights under RFRA; 

4. a declaratory judgment that the Mandates violate Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ 

rights under the APA; 

5. a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their 

agents, officials, servants, employees, and any other persons acting in concert with 

them from enforcing the Mandates against Plaintiffs or any member of the Class and 

from taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs or any member of the Class on the 

basis of this lawsuit or of Plaintiffs’ or any member’s request for religious 

accommodation related to the Mandates; 

6. an order declaring unlawful and setting aside the Mandates challenged in this 

Complaint; 

7. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other costs and disbursements in this 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412; 

8. relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled that is incidental to injunctive or declaratory 

relief; 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 66 of 68 PageID 66
67 

9. relief to which the Class may be entitled that is incidental to injunctive or declaratory 

relief; 

10. all other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled; and 

11. all other and further relief to which the Class may be entitled. 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 67 of 68 PageID 67
68 

Dated: September 16, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Charles W. Fillmore 

 

Stephen Crampton* 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* (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* 

mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

 5101 Old Highway 5, Box 442 

Adam S. Hochschild* 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* 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor 

Clayton, MO 63105 

(314)825-5725 

mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org 

Paul M. Jonna* 

LiMandri & Jonna LLP 

THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel 

P.O. Box 9120 

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 

(858)759-994 

pjonna@limandri.com 

* pro hac vice applications forthcoming 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 1 Filed 09/16/22 Page 68 of 68 PageID 68