Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a477_1bo2.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

entirely nugatory in the military context the guarantees of 
the First Amendment.” Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U. S. 
503, 507 (1986).  “This Court has never held . . . that mili-
tary personnel are barred from all redress in civilian courts
for constitutional wrongs suffered in the course of military 
service.”  Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, 304 (1983).  

Here, the Navy treated service members who applied for 
medical exemptions more favorably than those who sought
religious exemptions.  For one thing, requests for medical
exemptions were seriously considered, and quite a few were 
granted, at least on a temporary basis.  Application 7–8; 27
F. 4th, at ___, App. 20a (“[T]he Navy acknowledges that it 
has  granted  hundreds  of  medical  exemptions  from  the
COVID–19  vaccine,  at  least  17  of  which  were  temporary 
medical  exemptions  for  those  in  Naval  Special  Warfare”).
In addition, service personnel with medical exemptions are
not restricted as severely as respondents will be under the 
Court’s order.  App. 42a.  Indeed, the District Court found 
that under Navy policy those participating in clinical trials 
and  those  with  medical  contraindications  and  allergies  to
vaccines  remained  deployable,  unlike  those  seeking  reli-
gious accommodations.  Id., at 50a (citing ECF Doc. 17–2, 
at 66).  The Navy has no interest in different treatment for 
accommodation  requests  that  produce  otherwise  identical 
outcomes.  I  would  therefore  specify  in  the  Court’s  order 
that the Navy must provide equal treatment for all unvac-
cinated service members. 

III 
Today,  the  Court  brushes  aside  respondents’  First 
Amendment  and  RFRA  rights.  But  yesterday,  the  Court
handed  down  another  decision  that  illustrates  the  strong 
protection  for  religious  liberty  that  is  provided  by  the 
framework  that  applies  under  RFRA  and  strict  scrutiny.
The decision in question, Ramirez v. Collier, involved a con-
victed  murderer  awaiting  execution  and  his  rights  under