Challenges to the Air Force’s COVID-19 mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA or the Act); Mootness; Effect of defendant’s rescission of the vaccine mandate; Whether the government waived sovereign immunity in the RFRA; Whether plaintiff’s claim for lost drill pay & retirement points constituted “money damages” barred by sovereign immunity

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff-Poffenbarger’s (a member of the Air Force Reserve) claim for lost drill pay and retirement points, holding that they constituted “money damages” and thus, were barred by sovereign immunity that the government did not waive in the RFRA. When Poffenbarger’s request for a religious exemption to the Air Force's COVID-19 mandate was denied, his refusal to be vaccinated resulted in his being placed “on ‘No Pay/No Points status’—an inactive status on which he could not attend drills and thus could not earn pay and retirement points.” He sued defendants-Air Force officials claiming that its COVID-19 mandate, as applied to him, violated the RFRA and the First Amendment. After the mandate was rescinded, the district court dismissed the case as moot. The court agreed with Poffenbarger that the case was not moot and turned to the issue of whether his claim for drill pay and retirement points was barred by federal sovereign immunity. The RFRA “has waived the federal government’s immunity to some extent;” the issue concerned “‘the scope of that waiver.’” Whether there was a waiver of immunity as to Poffenbarger’s claim for lost drill pay and retirement points “depends on whether that relief, against these officials, is ‘appropriate relief’ as the Act uses that term.” The court reviewed the Act and noted that “every circuit court to have reached the issue” has held that the “‘RFRA does not authorize damages suits against the United States[.]’” The court agreed, concluding that “‘appropriate relief’ as used in the RFRA is too vague a phrase to waive unequivocally the federal government’s immunity from damages suits.” Thus, the court had to consider whether Poffenbarger’s claim for lost drill pay and retirement points constituted money damages and was therefore barred. It held that he was seeking “retrospective compensation for a previous legal wrong—which is to say it is money damages.” This was also true for the retirement points. Thus, the relief he sought was “relief to which the government remains immune.”