Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a477_1bo2.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21A477 
_________________ 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 
ET AL. v. U. S. NAVY SEALS 1–26, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR A PARTIAL STAY 

[March 25, 2022]

 JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dis-

senting. 

By rubberstamping the Government’s request for what it 
calls a “partial stay,” the Court does a great injustice to the 
35 respondents—Navy Seals and others in the Naval Spe-
cial Warfare community—who have volunteered to under-
take demanding and hazardous duties to defend our coun-
try.  These individuals appear to have been treated shabbily 
by the Navy, and the Court brushes all that aside.  I would 
not do so, and I therefore dissent. 

I 
In August 2021, the Secretary of the Navy made COVID–
19  vaccination  mandatory  and  threatened  severe  conse-
quences,  including  dishonorable  discharge  and  confine-
ment, for anyone who refused.1  Later Navy directives told 
service members that they could apply for religious exemp-
tions, see Electronic Case Filing in U. S. Navy Seals 1–26 v. 
Biden,  No.  4:21–cv–01236  (ND  Tex.,  Jan.  3,  2022)  (ECF), 
Doc. 44–1, p. 40 (Trident Order #12), but this program, as 

—————— 

1 See Decl. of W. Lescher in No. 4:21–cv–01236 (ND Tex.), ECF Doc. 87, 
p. 10 (explaining that the Navy’s vaccination policy was that refusing to
be vaccinated would constitute the refusal to obey “a lawful order under
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” which is punishable 
by dishonorable discharge and confinement for two years).