Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a477_1bo2.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

religious  exemption  would  end  their  naval  careers.    A  re-
spondent identified as Navy Seal 2 stated that a superior 
officer  advised  him  that  “ ‘all  religious  accommodation  re-
quests will be denied’ ” because “ ‘senior leadership . . . has 
no  patience  or  tolerance  for  service  members  who  refuse 
COVID–19 vaccination for religious reasons and want them
out of the SEAL community.’ ”  U. S. Navy Seals v. Biden, 
27 F. 4th 336, ___ (CA5 2022) (per curiam), App. 9a.  This 
officer  allegedly  added  that  “ ‘even  if  a  legal  challenge  is
somehow successful, the senior leadership of Naval Special
Warfare  will  remove  [his]  special  warfare  designation.’ ”  
Ibid.  According  to  Navy  Seal  5,  he  was  told  that  “ ‘there
[would] be a blanket denial of all religious accommodation 
requests  regarding  COVID–19  vaccination.’ ”    Ibid.  Navy
Seal  8  declared  that  his  “ ‘chain  of  command  . . .  made  it 
clear that [his] request [would] not be approved and . . . pro-
vided [him] with information on how to prepare for separa-
tion from the U. S. Navy.’ ”  Ibid.  Navy Seal 11 stated that
a command master chief told him that “ ‘anyone not receiv-
ing the COVID–19 vaccine is an “acceptable loss” to the Na-
val Special Warfare (NSW) community.’ ”  Ibid. 

Forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs 
and the punishment that the Navy threatened, respondents
brought this suit, claiming that the Navy’s denial of their 
exemption requests violated the Free Exercise Clause of the
First  Amendment  and  the  Religious  Freedom  Restoration 
Act  of  1993  (RFRA),  107  Stat.  1488,  42  U. S. C.  §2000bb 
et seq.  See  Complaint  in  ECF  Doc.  1.  The  District  Court
found that these claims were likely to succeed, and it issued 
a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from taking 
adverse  actions  against  respondents  due  to  their  unvac-
cinated status.  App. 56a.  But the court made clear that its 
order did not require the Navy “to make any particular per-
sonnel assignments” and left “[a]ll strategic decisions . . . in 
the hands of the Navy.”  Id., at 60a. 

The Government appealed and asked the U. S. Court of