Soldiers Shouldn’t Have to Choose Between Their Faith and Their Military Service
The Story
Driven by his Christian faith, Master Sergeant Robert W. Galey, Jr., chose a life of service in the U.S. Army. That’s why he’s given over sixteen years of his life as an active-duty infantry soldier and deployed eight times to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the Army first told service members that they must receive the vaccine, Master Sergeant Galey began to research the production process. He discovered that the vaccine they would have to take was tested and produced in a way that violated his profession of faith. His first request for exemption was denied, as was his appeal. He received a final notice that he will be separated from the Army.
Due to his refusal to take the vaccine on religious grounds, he’s been denied training opportunities and promotions, and received notice that he will be discharged from the Army, which will include the loss of his retirement benefits, including pension and medical care for his family.
Some believe the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will render a suit of this kind unnecessary due to a provision Republicans added rescinding the military’s COVID-19 mandate. Yet even the NDAA did not prevent Master Sergeant Galey’s unit from continuing to seek his separation from the Army.
Moreover, even if President Biden does sign the bill, what cannot be forgotten is two years of damages inflicted on faithful service members who chose not to take the vaccine for the sake of their faith. Many have already been separated or had their careers permanently damaged by the loss of promotion or training opportunities and are not addressed by the NDAA.
The suit claims these actions clearly violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as First Amendment, and Master Sergeant Galey is seeking to vindicate the law and Constitution.
“I am grateful that Congress has recognized the harm that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is having on the Army, but the NDAA changes won’t make me whole,” said Rob Galey, “I have missed out on training opportunities, been removed from leadership, and had my orders to an important follow-on assignment deleted, all for simply expressing my faith.”
The Latest
Case Proceeding on Appeal. The government’s response brief is due September 5, 2025, after receiving multiple extensions, with the case positioned to benefit from the favorable precedent established by Pelican in the Crocker v. Austin decision.
The Timeline
Complaint. On December 19, 2022, the Pelican Institute filed its Complaint on behalf of Master Sergeant Galey in the Western District of Louisiana. The case was assigned to the Honorable James D. Cain, Jr.
Legislation. On December 23, 2022, President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2023, legislation that ordered the military to rescind the vaccine mandate. The legislation was passed after significant attention was brought to the issue because of cases like that of Master Sergeant Galey. The case remains stayed pending the Army’s implementation of the vaccine mandate rescission.
Government’s Motion to Dismiss. On July 2, 2024, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the case was moot following the vaccine mandate rescission.
Amended Complaint. On July 23, 2024, the Pelican Institute filed an Amended Complaint addressing jurisdictional issues and strengthening claims regarding ongoing harm from adverse personnel actions.
Opposition Brief. On October 15, 2024, the Pelican Institute filed its opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss, arguing that Master Sergeant Galey continued to suffer harm despite the mandate’s rescission.
Ruling. On January 29, 2025, the District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding the case moot.
Appeal Filed. On February 19, 2025, the Pelican Institute filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the District Court’s mootness ruling.
Appellant’s Brief. On June 6, 2025, the Pelican Institute filed its opening brief with the Fifth Circuit, arguing that ongoing personnel record issues constitute continuing harm despite the vaccine mandate rescission.
Case Proceeding on Appeal. The government’s response brief is due September 5, 2025, after receiving multiple extensions, with the case positioned to benefit from the favorable precedent established by Pelican in the Crocker v. Austin decision.
For Media Inquiries
