Supreme Court Refuses to Take COVID-19 Shot Mandate Cases Affecting U.S. Service Members

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for Poffenbarger v. Meink and Doster v. Meink. These cases, in part, challenged the COVID-19 shot mandate imposed on U.S. service members by former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the Biden administration.

However, lower courts deemed the cases moot as a result of President Donald Trump’s enactment of an Executive Order issued on January 27, 2025, which aimed to “reinstate all members of the military (active and reserve) who were discharged for refusing the COVID vaccine and who request to be reinstated.”

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Davis Younts, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer.  “The Roberts Court [led by Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005] is fond of not taking on controversial issues,” according to him.

“Regardless of the legal wranglings and legal technicalities of all this, the unfortunate part is that, legally, the violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the harms that were done to so many military members won’t come out in the [Supreme] Court.”

Practically speaking, Younts said, “this would’ve been a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to hold the Biden Department of Defense (DOD) accountable for their intentional violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

While Joe Biden’s Pentagon offered only the blanket denial of religious accommodation requests, President Donald Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth have taken measures to right the wrongs of the previous administration, labeling the shot mandate as “unlawful as implemented.”

Younts is thankful that the decision not to hear the cases “does not set any precedent” and are “not a sweeping, broad legal decision.” However, he remains disappointed that it is “a missed opportunity.

“If the Supreme Court had taken these cases, if they had looked at the clear violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” he stated. “It would’ve been a great opportunity to recognize what the Biden administration did, [particularly pointing to] how heinous it was, how intentional it was from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and how intentional the denials were.”

Against the intent of Trump and Hegseth, Younts argued that the Court failed to send a clear message to all the Pentagon lawyers and bureaucrats who have evaded accountability. In his opinion, they should not be allowed escape scrutiny.

As a result, he said, “There are many who were impacted by the illegal and unlawful mandate that will be deeply disappointed because of the administrative barriers, that, to be fair, typically come from lower-level bureaucrats, recruiters, and others who don’t want to carry out the President’s intent or the Department of War’s intent.”

“Because there’s a reinstatement policy,” Younts argued, “the court punted and said, ‘now we don’t have to act.’”

This comes at a time when the reinstatement process has suffered in its execution, evidenced by the fact that so few service members have actually returned to the military.

“When it comes to reinstatement,” Younts explained, “the administrative barriers have put hurdles and burdens in place that are making the process very difficult.”

For example, he has talked to clients who attempted to return and were advised to meet with the recruiter, who would assist them. But recruiters aren’t receiving credit for reinstating service members, a task that demands considerable time and paperwork. Since this drawn-out process doesn’t contribute to meeting their quotas, Younts questions whether they are focusing on these cases or on others?

He has another client who requires an age waiver, but neither the President nor the War Secretary ever mentioned the necessity for age waivers. “Was this their intent? This isn’t an initial commitment; it’s a reinstatement,” he said. “Once again, that’s another client that’s going to have to go through the long process of going to the Board of Corrections to try to get this fixed.” And this is exactly where Pentagon lawyers and bureaucrats are failing service members in their efforts to return.

Reports indicate that between 8,400 and 8,600 service members were discharged for refusing the shot. These individuals are often referred to as involuntarily separated. But what about the possible tens of thousands of others who decided to leave on their own accord because of their personal fears or worries regarding the vaccine?

Considering both categories, note the reporting from Military Times stating that “from early 2023 through June 2025, [only, emphasis mine] 126 service members who had refused to receive the shot had returned to service.” As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, some have “[perceived] the speed at which these injustices are being addressed as a sham, or perhaps, a deliberate delay.”

What should President Trump and War Secretary Hegseth do to move forward? Younts suggested they should “redouble their efforts and ensure we have the right people in place so that these administrative roadblocks that are not consistent with their intent get removed,” which would lead to the reinstatement of more service members.

 

The post Supreme Court Refuses to Take COVID-19 Shot Mandate Cases Affecting U.S. Service Members appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.