Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a477_1bo2.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

AUSTIN v. U. S. NAVY SEALS 1–26 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

at very close quarters, and the remote and often inaccessi-
ble locations in which such missions are carried out.  Due 
to those characteristics, the Government argues, there is a 
heightened danger that the COVID–19 virus will spread, as
well as a special need to minimize the risk that a mission 
will be compromised by a sick team member who is unable
to perform assigned tasks with maximum effectiveness. 

In  order  to  win  at  trial,  it  would  not  be  enough  for  the
Government to posit that sending an unvaccinated Seal on
such a mission might produce such consequences.  A court 
could not simply defer to the Navy’s opinion, and mere “con-
jecture” or “speculation” would not be enough.  See Ramirez 
v. Collier, 595 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2022) (slip op., at 13–15); 
Fulton v. Philadelphia, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 
14).  The  Government  would  bear  the  burden  of  showing 
that mandatory vaccination is the least restrictive means of
furthering the interest it asserts in light of the present na-
ture of the pandemic, what is known about the spread of the
virus and the effectiveness of the vaccines, prevalent prac-
tices,  and  the  physical  characteristics  of  Navy  Seals  and 
others in the Special Warfare community.

Whether the Government will be able to make the requi-
site showing remains to be seen, but for the purposes of con-
sidering interim relief that is sought in an emergency ap-
plication, I am willing to accept the Navy’s need to refrain 
from sending unvaccinated Seals on the types of missions 
the Government has described.  But participating in such
missions is not the only thing that respondents do, and the
relief that the Government sought and that the Court now 
awards goes much further.  Using the terminology selected 
by the Government, the Court stays the preliminary injunc-
tion with respect to decisions about “deployment,” “assign-
ment,” and “other operational decisions.”

The Government has not told us what these terms mean, 
but without any contrary guidance, we must assume that 
they will be interpreted in accordance with the definitions