1
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, a non-profit
`organization,
`852 Franklin Ave., Suite 511
`Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as
`SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
`1000 Defense Pentagon
`Washington, DC 20301-1000
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. ________
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1. This action, inter alia, challenges the Department of Defense’s systematic evasion
`of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (RFRA), through a two-
`part strategy denying religious accommodations in military vaccination requirements.
`2. First, accession ambiguity: the Department of Defense’s immunization
`framework and accession communications send conflicting signals about whether applicants to
`the military can obtain religious accommodations. For example, the standard form Marine
`Officer Candidate School Pre-Ship Preparation Letter advises that “officer candidates with
`outdated/missing immunizations may be medically disqualified during in-processing if they are
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`unable to receive the required immunizations” and must, at a minimum, have completed
`specified childhood vaccines. However, DoDI 1300.17 specifically applies religious exemptions
`(accommodations) to applicants/pre-accession.
`3. Second, the “empty formality”/“largely theater” process: For active-duty service
`members, religious accommodations are an empty formality. Austin v. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26, 142
`S. Ct. 1301 (2022) (Alito, J., dissenting from partial stay)1. A May 2025 report aggregating DoD
`data reported only 2% approvals (as of January 2023, with a final rate of 0.8%) for nearly 36,500
`religious accommodation requests across services related to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.2
`4. The DoD grants medical exemptions, allowing service members to serve with
`accommodations such as limited deployability, duty restrictions, and medical monitoring. Yet,
`the DoD systematically denies religious accommodations despite the same operational impact
`and health risk. If service members with medical exemptions do not undermine force health
`
`1 Justice Alito quoted the district court’s finding that the religious exemption procedure was
`“'largely theater… [and] included no fewer than 50 steps, and during the first 35 steps, none of
`the various officials who processed requests gave any consideration to their merit. Instead, 'a
`form letter rejecting each request was prepared,' and although 'more than 4,000 exemption
`requests had been submitted by February 15, 2022, not a single one had been approved when the
`complaint in this case was filed.'” Id. at 1303-04. The district court also called the process “an
`empty formality” with “predetermined” denials, findings the Fifth Circuit reviewed. U.S. Navy
`SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 2022 WL 34443, *4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022), stay denied, 27 F.4th 336
`(5th Cir. 2022). Another court found that the Army approved only 1.35 percent. Chrisman v.
`Austin, 2022 WL 19416632 at *30 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2022). Congress mooted those cases
`before structural remedies could be imposed per the National Defense Authorization Act for
`Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 525, 136 Stat. 2395, 2571-72 (2022).
`2 Maracle, Navigating Faith and Duty: Treatise on Religious Accommodations in the U.S.
`Military (Duke Univ. Sanford Sch. of Pub. Pol., Consortium on Training & Talent Pol'y, May 6,
`2025) (p. 3) (aggregating DoD IG and congressional data on nearly 36,500 COVID-era requests
`with 2% approvals as of January 2023 and a final 0.8%; hundreds of medical exemptions granted
`without adverse consequences). https://cttp.sanford.duke.edu/wp-
`content/uploads/sites/16/2025/05/Maracle-AY25-FSRP-20250407_8K.pdf
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`protection or readiness, then service members with religious exemptions should not do so either.
`This disparate treatment proves the DoD's true interest is coercing compliance with vaccination
`as a policy preference, not protecting military readiness, and thus violates RFRA, the Equal
`Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and substantive due process.
`5. Finally, in light of the Supreme Court's December 8, 2025, grant-vacate-remand
`order in Miller v. McDonald, No. 25-133 (U.S.), based on Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522
`(2025), the Defendant’s religious exemption sham policies violate the First Amendment.
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this
`action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Religious
`Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
`§§ 702, 704, 706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. Sovereign
`immunity is waived by 5 U.S.C. § 702 for the non-monetary relief sought.
`7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the Secretary
`of Defense performs his official duties in Washington, D.C., and the challenged vaccination
`policies and religious accommodation procedures were promulgated and are implemented here.
`III. THE PARTIES
`A. The Plaintiff
`8. Plaintiff Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is a nonprofit organization based in
`Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, dedicated to protecting medical freedom, informed consent, and
`religious liberty, particularly in contexts involving vaccination mandates and government
`coercion.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`9. Although CHD’s primary mission is children’s health, during the pandemic,
`CHD’s leadership decided that the attack on the rights of military personnel was so great that it
`was necessary to divert substantial resources from its primary mission to assist individuals
`serving in the military and new recruits.
`10. As a result, in October 2023 CHD created a Military Chapter, “Guardians of
`Warriors – Champions of Health,” led by former members of all branches of the U.S. Armed
`Forces. The Military Chapter is devoted to safeguarding the rights, health, and well-being of
`military service members and applicants, with particular focus on medical autonomy, informed
`consent, and religious freedom in the military context. https://mil.childrenshealthdefense.org/
`11. Through its Military Chapter, CHD provides education, advocacy, and support to
`service members and their families on military vaccine mandates, religious accommodations,
`medical exemptions, and toxic exposures. The Chapter disseminates legal and medical
`information, counsels service members facing discipline for refusing unlawful orders, and
`educates them on navigating Department of Defense’s regulatory requirements.
`12. The Military Chapter has supported litigation challenging unlawful vaccine
`mandates and denial of religious exemptions for service members, including cases arising from
`the COVID-19 vaccine mandate and the unlawful administration of Emergency Use
`Authorization vaccines.
`13. The Military Chapter also addresses a broader range of military health issues,
`including support for veterans under the PACT Act, education on historical vaccine injuries in
`the military such as anthrax and smallpox, oversight of DoD infectious-disease research and
`countermeasures programs, and documentation of vaccine injuries among service members
`through interviews, publications, and public forums. It hosts regular educational events,
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`including Veterans Day forums, town halls, and conferences on military medical mandates and
`service member rights.
`14. CHD brings this action for itself and on behalf of its Military Chapter participants,
`whose interests in religious liberty and bodily integrity are directly implicated by the Department
`of Defense’s vaccination policies and religious accommodation procedures as described herein.
`15. The Military Chapter works with dozens of service personnel who are currently
`involved in administrative proceedings regarding their application for religious exemptions or for
`their failure to undergo required vaccination. However, these individuals are reluctant to
`formally join this lawsuit for fear of retaliation, or that participation in this case would adversely
`affect their career or their pending administrative cases. Plaintiff CHD sues on their behalf under
`associational standing.
`B. The Defendant
`16. Defendant Pete Hegseth is the Secretary of Defense of the United States, sued in
`his official capacity. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for issuing, implementing, and
`enforcing Department of Defense vaccination requirements for military applicants and service
`members, including DoDI 6205.02, DoD Immunization Program, religious accommodation
`procedures under DoDI 1300.17, and other relevant sections.
`17. The Secretary has authority to revise these policies and procedures to comply with
`RFRA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution.
`IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. The Department of Defense Uses the CDC’s Immunization Standards
`18. The Department of Defense does not maintain an independent, minimum
`military-specific vaccination schedule or conduct its own primary vaccine safety and efficacy
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`trials. Instead, it relies on and incorporates civilian public health vaccine recommendations made
`by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on
`Immunization Practices. DoDI 6205.02, sections, 1.2.a, page 3, and AR 40-562/BUMEDINST
`6230.15B/AFI 48-110_IP/CG COMDTINST M6230.4G, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2-1a, page 2.
`B. The DoD’s Unclear or Contradictory Regulatory Message to Applicants
`19. DoD maintains an unclear and seemingly contradictory set of regulations and
`communications regarding whether religious accommodations for vaccination are available to
`individuals who want to join the military.
`20. Accession-level implementing guidance such as the standard form Marine Officer
`Candidates School Pre-Ship Preparation Letter, for example, informs candidates that “officer
`candidates with outdated/missing immunizations may be medically disqualified during
`in-processing if they are unable to receive the required immunizations,” and that, at a minimum,
`they must have completed specified childhood immunizations, without any reference to RFRA or
`to religious accommodations for vaccines in that section of the letter. This suggests that
`vaccination is a medical requirement or qualification analogous to height, vision, or other
`physical standards, and suggests that applicants with religious objections simply do not qualify. 3
`21. However, DoD regulations include religious exemptions for applicants/pre-
`accession. See DoDI 1300.17.
`22. Taken together, these regulations send irreconcilable signals about the availability
`of religious exemptions for applicants. Applicants cannot tell from the governing regulations
`
`3 No. 16 (page 8-9) of the Pre-Ship Preparation Letter titled “Religious Services” refers to “free
`exercise of religion, and at a. entitled “Religious Accommodations” does offer religious
`accommodations, but since it is a subparagraph of No, 16, the accommodation is limited to
`“Religious Services” and other subsections of this section.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`whether they are allowed to request religious accommodations for vaccination at the accession
`stage, what procedures would apply, or what standards would govern. As a result, individuals
`with sincere religious objections to vaccination are largely deterred from pursuing military
`service rather than risking permanent disqualification or rejection for asserting RFRA rights.
`And on information and belief, those few that do make a request for accommodation are denied
`automatically.
`23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that there is no
`operational justification for affording service members at least theoretical access to religious
`accommodation procedures for vaccination, while denying or obscuring that same access to
`applicants.
`C. Estimated Impact on Recruitment
`24. CDC data show that approximately 1.2 percent of U.S. children receive no
`vaccines by age two. Extrapolated to the national population, this represents roughly 400,000
`unvaccinated minors nationwide.
`25. The Department of Defense reports that approximately 0.4 percent of Americans
`serve in the military at some point in their lives. Applying that enlistment rate to the
`unvaccinated population, 400,000 unvaccinated individuals multiplied by a 0.4 percent
`enlistment rate yields approximately 1,600 individuals per year who, statistically, would be
`expected to enter military service if they were not barred by vaccination requirements.
`26. A more generous estimate, accounting for higher enlistment rates among certain
`demographics that are disproportionately represented in the military, yields approximately 3,000
`individuals per year who are effectively barred from service solely because of the accession
`vaccination policy keyed to the CDC childhood immunization schedule.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`27. Many of these individuals hold sincere religious objections to some or all vaccines
`and otherwise possess the physical fitness, educational qualifications, and moral character to
`serve. They are excluded or deterred not because of any lack of aptitude or commitment to
`national defense, but because DoD presents vaccination as a non-accommodatable medical
`qualification at the accession stage and provides no clear, reliable path for religious
`accommodations.
`28. The permanent nature of the accession vaccination policy means that this exclusion
`is not a one-time anomaly but a recurring barrier. Year after year, DoD’s wholesale adoption of
`the CDC childhood immunization schedule, combined with the absence of a meaningful
`religious accommodation process for applicants, removes thousands of willing, qualified,
`religiously observant Americans from the potential recruiting pool.
`D. Existing Accommodations Demonstrate Feasibility
`29. The Department of Defense currently accommodates service members who receive
`medical exemptions from vaccination. These service members continue to serve in a variety of
`billets and specialties under existing personnel and medical policies.
`30. Medically exempt service members are assigned limited-deployability
`classifications that restrict their deployment to certain geographic areas where particular vaccines
`are required, such as yellow fever for deployments to parts of Africa and South America. They
`may also be reassigned to non-deploying or stateside roles, or to duties where vaccination status
`is less operationally critical.
`31. In addition to duty limitations, DoD employs medical monitoring and surveillance
`as an accommodation. Commanders and medical personnel track the health of medically exempt
`service members through periodic screenings and follow-up, and in some cases use targeted,
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`deployment-specific vaccination if and when a service member’s medical condition resolves or if
`a particular mission requires a discrete immunization.
`32. These existing practices demonstrate that service members with medical
`exemptions can be integrated into the force without any undue burden and without undermining
`readiness or force health protection. If complete vaccination were truly indispensable, medical
`exemptions in service personnel would not be tolerated.
`33. The same accommodations (like monitoring) that DoD already uses for medically
`exempt service members could be available for service members and applicants with religious
`objections. Operationally, service members with medical and religious exemption present
`identical questions about deployment, assignment, and medical monitoring, and the same tools
`can address both situations. (Except that in some cases, service members with a religious
`exemption might be healthier than the medically vaccine exempt.)
`E. COVID-19 Litigation Revealed RFRA Violations, But Mootness Prevented
`Structural Remedy
`34. The Department of Defense’s approach to religious accommodations for
`vaccination was exposed during COVID-19 vaccine mandate litigation. Multiple federal courts
`found that DOD’s religious-accommodation processes violated RFRA across all service
`branches, but Congress rescinded the COVID-19 mandate before any court could enter final
`judgment or impose structural reforms.
`35. In U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 v. Biden, 27 F.4th 336, 344, 347 (5th Cir. 2022), the
`Fifth Circuit cited the district court’s finding that the Navy’s process was “an empty formality.”
`The Navy had received more than 4,000 religious exemption requests for the COVID-19 vaccine
`and granted none of them, while granting hundreds of medical exemptions, including at least 10
`permanent and 259 temporary medical exemptions for active-duty sailors. U.S. Navy SEALs 1-
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`26, 27 F.4th at 344, 347. The court upheld a preliminary injunction for 35 Navy SEALs, finding
`a strong likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the Navy failed to conduct
`individualized assessments and because its policy was substantially underinclusive in light of the
`many unvaccinated service members with medical exemptions.
`36. As previously indicated, in his opinion dissenting from a partial stay, Justice Alito
`described the Navy’s convoluted religious-accommodation process which resulted in the
`granting of no religious exemptions. See footnote 1 above at page 2.
`37. The Army’s record was similar. In Chrisman v. Austin, the court found that the
`Army had granted only 123 religious exemptions out of 9,068 requests, an overall approval rate
`of 1.35 percent and a 6.04 percent approval rate among decided requests, and that 21 percent of
`those approvals were given to service members already scheduled to leave the service, making
`those accommodations largely meaningless. No. 6:22-cv-00049, 2022 WL 19416632 at *30
`(N.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2022). The court found that the Army used boilerplate denial letters with no
`individualized analysis and granted a preliminary injunction based on its conclusion that the
`Army was systematically violating RFRA’s requirement for individualized assessment.
`38. The Air Force also initially granted no religious exemptions to its COVID-19
`vaccine requirement, while later issuing a small number of approvals only after litigation began.
`See, e.g., Air Force Officer v. Austin, No. 5:22-cv-00009 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2022) (finding the
`accommodation process “illusory” and granting preliminary relief). As of late 2021, across all
`branches, DOD had received 16,643 religious exemption requests and had granted none, while
`granting hundreds of medical exemptions in the same period.
`39. The central factual pattern was the same in each branch: religious exemption
`requests were approved at rates approaching zero, denials were issued with boilerplate language
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`that did not reference individual beliefs or proposed accommodations, and yet large numbers of
`medically exempt and otherwise unvaccinated service members were allowed to remain in
`service. Courts repeatedly described these processes as predetermined and inconsistent with
`RFRA’s command to conduct individualized, strict-scrutiny analysis.
`40. Despite these findings, no court had the opportunity to enter a final judgment or to
`impose structural remedies requiring DoD to reform its religious-accommodation system. In
`December 2022, Congress rescinded the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the National Defense
`Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 525, 136 Stat. 2395, 2574
`(2022). That rescission mooted the pending cases, and courts dismissed them without reaching
`final adjudication on the merits or ordering permanent reforms.
`41. As a result, DoD’s underlying approach to RFRA compliance remained
`unchanged. The same formal procedures in DoDI 1300.17 and service-specific regulations that
`courts found were applied as an “empty formality” during COVID-19 remain in place today.
`There has been no transparent public accounting of approval and denial rates for religious
`accommodations across vaccines, no prohibition on boilerplate denials, no requirement for
`written individualized findings, and no explanation for the disparate treatment of medical versus
`religious exemptions.
`42. This shows that the structural problems revealed during COVID-19 litigation have
`not been corrected. The same regulatory framework and the same practical patterns of near-zero
`approval, boilerplate reasoning, and predetermined outcomes continue to govern religious
`accommodation requests for vaccination, now applied not only to COVID-19 but to all vaccines
`on the CDC schedule that DoD has adopted for accessions and ongoing service.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`VIOLATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT
`43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`44. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides that the federal government may
`not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even by a rule of general applicability,
`unless it demonstrates that application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling
`governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C.
`§ 2000bb-1(a)–(b).
`45. DoD’s vaccination policies and practices substantially burden the religious
`exercise of Plaintiff’s Military Chapter participants, both those who seek entry into the military
`and those who are already in service.
`46. RFRA applies to vaccination requirements regardless of whether DoD labels them
`“medical qualifications.” Vaccination is not a true physical prerequisite to service, because DoD
`routinely grants medical exemptions and retains unvaccinated service members with
`accommodations. By subjecting vaccination to exemptions and accommodations in some cases,
`DoD has made it a regulatory policy subject to RFRA, not an absolute medical bar.
`47. DoD’s accommodation processes, as applied to vaccination, do not comply with
`RFRA. During COVID-19 litigation, federal courts found that DoD and the services denied all or
`nearly all religious accommodation requests, used boilerplate templates, and failed to conduct
`individualized assessments, while simultaneously granting hundreds of medical exemptions to
`unvaccinated service members. The experience of Plaintiff’s Military Chapter participants shows
`that these patterns continue.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`48. DoD has not carried its burden to show that denying religious accommodations for
`vaccination furthers a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. DoD’s asserted interests
`in forced health protection and readiness are undermined by the existence of medically exempt
`and otherwise unvaccinated service members who serve under accommodations. Less restrictive
`means such as limited deployability, duty reassignment, medical monitoring, and
`deployment-specific vaccination already exist and are used for medically exempt personnel yet
`are withheld from religious objectors.
`49. By substantially burdening Plaintiff’s Military Chapter participants’ religious
`exercise without satisfying RFRA’s strict-scrutiny standard, DoD has violated RFRA. Plaintiff
`seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to bring DoD’s vaccination and accommodation policies
`into compliance with RFRA.
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
`50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`51. Military service members have a First Amendment Freedom of Religion right for
`an exemption/accommodation from service-required vaccination based on the Supreme Court’s
`December 8, 2025, grant-vacate-remand order in Miller v. McDonald, No. 25-133 (U.S.), citing
`Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025).
`52. The Defendant’s vaccine exemption/accommodation sham policies violate the
`rights of all service members who seek an exemption/accommodation from service vaccine
`requirements, as well as the rights of applicants to the military because of the threshold
`ambiguity of whether applicants have a statutory right to a religious exemption/accommodation
`from vaccination requirements.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
`53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`54. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires a reviewing court to hold
`unlawful and set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`55. DoD’s adoption of the CDC childhood immunization schedule as a mandatory
`accession requirement through DoDI 6205.02 is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiff alleges that
`CDC has never cumulatively safety-tested the full 18-year schedule and that neither CDC nor
`DoD has studied the safety of compressing that schedule into a short catch-up regimen for
`unvaccinated adults. DOD adopted the schedule wholesale without independent military-specific
`safety review, without analyzing which vaccines are necessary for readiness, without considering
`less restrictive alternatives such as deployment-specific or role-specific vaccination, and without
`notice-and-comment rulemaking.
`56. DoD has not provided a reasoned explanation for requiring most of the entire
`civilian pediatric schedule as a condition of entry into service.
`57. Moreover, it is a violation of the APA for maintaining seemingly contradictory
`regulations that present vaccination as a non-accommodatable “medical qualification” per
`Marine OCS entry letters, while simultaneously providing religious-accommodation procedures
`without subject-matter exclusions in DoDI 1300.17.
`58. In addition, DoD’s systematic denial of religious accommodation requests for
`vaccination for service members, including near-zero approval rates during COVID-19,
`continued use of boilerplate denials, and the pending separation of military personnel for failure
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`to vaccinate constitutes arbitrary and capricious administration of its own policies. When an
`agency grants medical exemptions and allows such service members to serve, but systematically
`denies religious accommodations without individualized analysis or reasoned explanation, it acts
`without a rational connection between facts found and choices made.
`59. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that DoD’s accession vaccination policy, to the extent
`it incorporates the CDC childhood immunization schedule without independent analysis or
`rulemaking, and its arbitrary administration of religious-accommodation procedures, violate the
`APA, and an order setting aside those policies and requiring lawful rulemaking and reasoned
`decision-making.
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION COMPONENT OF THE FIFTH
`AMENDMENT
`60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`61. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment includes an Equal Protection
`component that prohibits the federal government from treating similarly situated persons
`differently without adequate justification.
`62. DoD treats medically exempt service members differently from those who seek
`religious exemptions, even though they are similarly situated with respect to the government’s
`stated interests. Many medically exempt service members need no operational accommodations
`at all, and others are given accommodations. Service members seeking religious exemptions are
`denied comparable exemptions and accommodations, and face separation instead, despite
`identical health risks and identical operational accommodations being available.
`63. DoD also treats applicants differently from service members with respect to access
`to religious-accommodation procedures for vaccination. Applicants are told, through for example
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`OCS letters, that missing vaccines result in medical disqualification and are given no clear path
`to seek religious accommodations, while service members on paper may submit accommodation
`requests under DoDI 1300.17.
`64. Both forms of different treatment burden the fundamental right to free exercise of
`religion and therefore trigger strict scrutiny. DoD cannot show that this disparate treatment
`furthers a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. Even under rational-basis review, it
`is irrational to claim that vaccine medically exempt personnel can be safely accommodated while
`insisting that identically situated religious objectors to vaccines cannot.
`65. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to end this unlawful disparate
`treatment.
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
`66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`67. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects fundamental liberty
`interests, including the right to free exercise of religion and the right to bodily integrity, and
`prohibits the federal government from depriving individuals of liberty or property without due
`process of law.
`68. DoD’s vaccination policies substantially burden these fundamental interests by
`conditioning military service on submission to a comprehensive, civilian-designed vaccination
`schedule, and, for unvaccinated adults on an intense catch-up regimen that has never been
`cumulatively safety-tested, despite Plaintiff’s Military Chapter participants’ sincere religious
`objections and concerns about bodily integrity. Active-duty service personnel face a choice
`between continued military service and adherence to their religious convictions.
`Case 1:25-cv-04363-ACR Document 1 Filed 12/16/25 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`69. For substantially the same reasons set forth in Claim I, DoD’s policies and
`practices fail strict scrutiny under substantive due process. They are not narrowly tailored,
`because less restrictive alternatives such as limited-deployability, duty reassignment, and
`medical monitoring are already in use for medically exempt personnel and could be extended to
`religious objectors. The underinclusive treatment of medical versus religious exemptions further
`undermines any claim of a compelling interest.
`70. Active-duty service personnel are being deprived of protected liberty and property
`interests in their military careers and reputations without adequate procedural safeguards. DoD
`has failed to provide clear, accessible procedures governing religious accommodation requests
`for vaccination; has relied on boilerplate denials that do not reflect individualized consideration;
`and has moved to separate them without a meaningful opportunity to be heard or a reasoned
`explanation for refusing accommodations that are granted to medically exempt service members.
`71. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preventing further due-process
`violations and halting separations undertaken without genuine RFRA-compliant review and
`adequate procedural protections.
`VI. CONCLUSION
`72. This action seeks to vindicate the rights of CHD’s Military Chapter participants by
`eliminating the DoD's two-pronged RFRA evasion: accession ambiguity that deters applicants,
`and sham processes that predetermine denials for active-duty personnel. As pled, the DoD's
`disparate treatment of medical versus religious exemptions defeats any compelling interest in
`readiness, while its wholesale adoption of the untested CDC schedule without APA-compliant
`review renders the policy arbitrary. The sham persists, with 2025 dat