Army approves appeal and eviscerates the DOJ’ entire argument in one paragraph

A soldier appealed the Surgeon General’s decision which denied his religious accommodation for the Covid-19 vaccine, and his appeal was approved by the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

The second paragraph states:

After reviewing the facts and circumstances presented in your appeal, I have determined that vaccinating you at this time is not the least restrictive means to further the Army’s compelling governmental interests of protecting the health of the force…

This is a staggering 180 degree turn from the Department of Justice’ entire argument which all of their litigation in court has stood upon.

For instance, In John and Jane Doe vs. Austin which is being tried in the Northern District of Florida, the DOJ states “mandatory vaccines are the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest in preventing infectious disease.”

This statement can’t be be overemphasized enough: this is a big deal.

The Army approving this appeal will send the DOJ back to the drawing board on their already weak argument that mandating a vaccine (which doesn’t work) is somehow constitutional and is the least restrictive means to prevent infectious disease.

Related Articles


  1. Religious exemptions should be a rubber stamp approval at the battalion or company level. All the massive paperwork, interviews, and high levels of command approval should only be required for a desired denial.

  2. Ah, victory! Hopefully this will be the mass email template going forward.

    On a side note: The only the thing the vaccine can prevent is the asymptomatic spread of the virus. Because if symptomatic, you stay at home on quarantine, regardless of shot status. Which then is a less restrictive means that does not infringe on your rights, compared to getting the clot shot.