Hey. Thanks for the ping. I just learned about this lawsuit for the first time yesterday from a coworker. Then again from a discord group I'm part of. I'm surprised this particular lawsuit wasn't higher profile, but I'm guessing that's because it's for an individual and not a group (like the Navy Seals one). I'm not seeing her rank anywhere, but it says she's a 25 year officer in the Reserves. That's no small chicken.

According to the article, her legal group stated this is "the first time ever that an injunction has successfully blocked the military’s vaccine mandate from being forced on an individual." While this could be technically true, the Navy Seal Lawsuit also issued a preliminary injunction, but that had several plaintiffs mentioned.

Unfortunately, the judge stated this “simply don’t warrant a nationwide injunction,” and decided to keep it as an individual case. Still, this is a major stepping stone because we now have at least two ongoing cases (Seals and this one) that appear to be mirroring each other. These two lawsuits (and civilian lawsuits) have given me great hope where I otherwise wouldn't have any.

P.S. Late January, there was an addendum filed in the Seal's lawsuit to open it up for all military. To my knowledge, this has not been granted nor denied yet.

(Edit: I forgot to add the article I saw yesterday. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/federal-judge-air-force-officer-covid-vaccine/)

I think the problem specifically as it relates to the military is that the Federal government can do whatever they want with soldiers except for violate certain enumerated Constitutional rights. And a right to bodily autonomy has never been recognized, whether that is supposed to be implicit in the Constitution or not. In other words, if they are trying to force the vax on civilians, you can argue it's outside their purview (although apparently the Supreme Court has ruled it's totes cool.) With respect to soldiers, the scope of the Federal government is much greater. For instance, consider freedom of movement. Civilians basically have that right. Soldiers don't. The government can restrict their travel even in their off time.

I think that the Constitution should contain a right to bodily autonomy. I don't know that it does. You could argue analogous things in the 4th amendment, but it seems actually unanticipated by the Bill of Rights. I don't think they anticipated the government trying to stick something in you. They do seem to have anticipated the government trying to extract something from your person, hence the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.