Tanner Roth v. Lloyd Austin, III, No. 22-2058 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The United States Air Force required all service members to be vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to certain exemptions. In this case, thirty-six members of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, or Air National Guard sued the Secretary of Defense and others, alleging that the government’s denial of their requests for religious exemptions violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Airmen sought a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the Air Force from taking steps to discharge any of the Airmen and from denying travel, training, or other career opportunities to them. The district court denied the motion and later dismissed much of the case, although one aspect of the complaint remains pending in the district court. The Airmen appealed the order denying the request for preliminary injunctive relief.
The Eighth Circuit, in light of intervening developments that have granted the Airmen all of the relief requested, dismissed the appeal. The court explained that none of the Airmen is subject to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, and no adverse action may be taken against the Airmen for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. A statutory change that discontinues a challenged practice usually makes an appeal moot.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - COVID. In this case members of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard challenged the Air Forces' March, 2022 requirement that all service members, with certain exemptions, must be vaccinated against COVID-19. The Airmen appeal the district court's order denying their request for preliminary injunctive relief. In light of intervening developments, including recission of the mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act and a ruling in a case in Ohio where the relief requested in plaintiff's complaint was granted to their class, the matter is moot, and the appeal is dismissed. Judge Stras, concurring in the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.