CROSBY
v.
AUSTIN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court held that federal judges cannot second-guess the President's military decisions, except for valid religious objections.
Plaintiff, a soldier, challenged the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging violations of informed consent, APA, RFRA, and the First Amendment.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Religious Freedom Restoration Act cases and more on FLexlaw
LLOYD AUSTIN, III, et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss,” filed on June1, 2022. (Doc. 60). On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff Howard Crosby filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 62). Having carefully considered the motion, response in opposition, the court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows: Plaintiff, a noncommissioned officer in the United States Army, challenges the U.S. military’s covid-19 vaccine mandate. His challenges are based on alleged violations of: (1) informed consent laws due to the alleged unavailability of an FDAlicensed vaccine; (2) the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); (3) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”); and (4) the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Upon review, the Court finds that all of Plaintiff’s claims, other than his religious objections, are subject to dismissal for a “simple overarching reason: Under Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” Austin v. U. S. Navy Seals 1-26, 142 S. Ct. 1301, 1302 (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). For this reason –
separation of powers – it is unnecessary to discuss the various legal arguments made here in detail. At the end of the day, the outcome is the same. The President, not the federal courts, runs the U.S. military. Except for Plaintiff’s religious claims, the Court declines to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military affairs and will not attempt to adjudicate the wisdom of professional military judgments.1 As to Plaintiff’s religious claims, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court
will transfer this case to the Honorable Steven D. Merryday, with his consent, as it appears related to a pending class action lawsuit before his Honor. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) All claims, other than Plaintiff Howard Crosby’s religious objections, are hereby DISMISSED.
D. Merryday, with his consent.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida this 24th day of June, 2022.