Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a477_1bo2.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

AUSTIN v. U. S. NAVY SEALS 1–26 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

pushing paper or reading manuals for the duration of the 
appellate process.  It is squarely within the judicial power 
of Article III to assess whether the Government has shown 
that it has a compelling interest in obtaining this breadth
of equitable relief pending appeal.  The Government has not 
done so. 

I would not rubberstamp the Government’s proposed lan-
guage.  While I am not sure that the Navy is entitled to any
relief  at  this  stage,  I  am  also  wary,  as  was  the  District 
Court,  about  judicial  interference  with  sensitive  military 
decision making.  Granting a substantial measure of defer-
ence to the Navy, I would limit the order to the selection of 
the Special Warfare service members who are sent on mis-
sions where there is a special need to minimize the risk that 
the illness of a member due to COVID–19 might jeopardize
the success of the mission or the safety of the team mem-
bers.  This, I believe, was the aim of the District Court, and 
respondents  themselves  understand  the  preliminary  in-
junction that way.  See Response in Opposition 1 (stating
that the injunction “does not require the Navy to deploy any
of the thirty-five plaintiffs” (footnote omitted)). 

B 
Respondents  are  also  likely  to  prevail  on  their  claims 
under the Free Exercise Clause.  Under our case law, if the 
Federal Government or a State treats conduct engaged in
for  religious  reasons  less  favorably  than  similar  conduct 
engaged 
is 
unconstitutional unless the relevant jurisdiction can satisfy 
“strict  scrutiny,”  which  is  essentially  the  same  as  the
standard imposed by RFRA.  See Employment Div., Dept. of 
Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 878–879 
(1990); Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 
U. S. 520, 533 (1993).

for  secular  reasons,  that  treatment 

in 

That “[o]ur review of military regulations challenged on 
First Amendment grounds” is deferential does not “render