Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt

Summary

In U.S. Navy SEALs 1-3, et al. v. Austin, et al. (Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, Case No. 4:21-cv-01236-O), Plaintiffs move for an order to show cause why Defendants should not be in contempt. Plaintiffs state that on January 3, 2022, the Court issued an order enjoining Defendants from applying four of Defendants' policies and from taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs on the basis of requests for religious accommodation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are disregarding that order by continuing to apply the same policies, and ask the Court to set a hearing. The motion is dated January 31, 2022, and the signature block names Heather Gebelin Hacker.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

U.S. NAVY SEALs 1-3; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated;
U.S. NAVY EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL TECHNICIAN 1, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; U.S.
NAVY SEALS 4-26; U.S. NAVY SPECIAL
WARFARE
COMBATANT
CRAFT
CREWMEN 1-5; and U.S. NAVY DIVERS
1-3,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official
capacity as United States Secretary of Defense;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; CARLOS DEL TORO, in his
official capacity as United States Secretary of
the Navy,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:21-cv-01236-O

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
On January 3, 2022, this Court issued a clear and unambiguous Order enjoining Defendants
from applying four of Defendants’ policies and enjoining Defendants from taking any adverse
action against Plaintiffs on the basis of Plaintiffs’ requests for religious accommodation. Dkt. 66.
Defendants are disregarding and willfully violating that Order by continuing to apply the same
policies and continuing to impose the same injuries on Plaintiffs that initially warranted injunctive
relief, effectively granting themselves the stay of the injunction they are asking the Court for.1

1 See Dkt. 85; see also forthcoming Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Injunction Pending
Appeal.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 1 of 5   PageID 2796
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 1 of 5   PageID 2796

2

Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court set a hearing on this matter and order the
Defendants to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt on the following grounds:
• Failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants
from applying NAVADMIN 225/21, NAVADMIN 256/21, MANMED § 15-
105(4)(n)(9),2 and Trident Order #12 to Plaintiffs;

• Failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants
from “taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs on the basis of Plaintiffs’ requests
for religious accommodation.”
This motion is made and based on these grounds, the pleadings, papers, records, and files
in this action, court minutes, and evidence and testimony to be presented at the hearing of this
motion. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order directing Defendants to show
cause as to why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s January
3, 2022, Order, as described above.

2 Plaintiffs’ complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, as well as the preliminary-injunction
order, referred to MANMED § 15-105(3)(n)(9), but that is a scrivener’s error. The correct citation is
MANMED § 15-105(4)(n)(9).
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 2 of 5   PageID 2797
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 2 of 5   PageID 2797

3

Respectfully submitted this 31st day of January, 2022.

Kelly J. Shackelford
  Texas Bar No. 18070950
Jeffrey C. Mateer
  Texas Bar No. 13185320
Hiram S. Sasser, III
  Texas Bar No. 24039157
David J. Hacker
  Texas Bar No. 24103323
Michael D. Berry
  Texas Bar No. 24085835
Justin Butterfield
  Texas Bar No. 24062642
Danielle A. Runyan *
  New Jersey Bar No. 027232004
Holly M. Randall *
  Oklahoma Bar No. 34763
FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
2001 W. Plano Pkwy., Ste. 1600
Plano, Texas 75075
Tel: (972) 941-4444
jmateer@firstliberty.org
hsasser@firstliberty.org
dhacker@firstliberty.org
mberry@firstliberty.org
jbutterfield@firstliberty.org
drunyan@firstliberty.org
hrandall@firstliberty.org

Jordan E. Pratt
  Florida Bar No. 100958* **
FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
227 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (972) 941-4444
jpratt@firstliberty.org

*  Admitted pro hac vice
** Not yet admitted to the D.C. Bar, but
admitted to practice law in Florida. Practicing
law in D.C. pursuant to D.C. Court of Appeals
Rule 49(c)(8) under the supervision of an
attorney admitted to the D.C. Bar.
/s/ Heather Gebelin Hacker
Heather Gebelin Hacker
  Texas Bar No. 24103325
Andrew B. Stephens
  Texas Bar No. 24079396
HACKER STEPHENS LLP
108 Wild Basin Road South, Suite 250
Austin, Texas 78746
Tel.: (512) 399-3022
heather@hackerstephens.com
andrew@hackerstephens.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 3 of 5   PageID 2798
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 3 of 5   PageID 2798

4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Before filing this motion, on January 31, 2021, I conferred by email with Defendants’
counsel “to determine whether the motion is opposed.” L.R. 7(a). Defendants’ counsel said that he
could not state whether Defendants are opposed to this motion until he is made aware of what the
allegations are and has investigated them.

Defendants’ counsel later stated that he wanted Plaintiffs to include the following as
Defendants’ position on this motion for order to show cause:
Defendants’ counsel asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to explain how Defendants are
allegedly violating the Court’s Preliminary Injunction.  Plaintiffs’ counsel declined
to provide any information regarding their allegations.  Defendants’ counsel
explained that the factual allegations are needed before the Navy can look into the
issue, and with the facts, the parties could attempt to resolve or at least narrow any
issues without litigation.  Plaintiffs’ counsel still declined to provide any
information regarding their allegations.  Since Plaintiffs have not provided any
details regarding the basis of their motion, Defendants cannot provide a position.
Defendants are already on notice of most of these issues, as they were discussed in the
preliminary-injunction briefing, the preliminary-injunction order, and Defendants’ motion to stay
the injunction pending appeal. Plaintiffs also fear continued retaliation without intervention from
the Court, and because this motion is related to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to
stay (which is due today), Plaintiffs decline to delay filing the instant motion pending investigation
by Defendants, especially when it is obvious that Defendants oppose the motion. See L.R. 7(a).
/s/Heather Gebelin Hacker

HEATHER GEBELIN HACKER

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 4 of 5   PageID 2799
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 4 of 5   PageID 2799

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 31, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document
through the Court’s ECF system, which automatically notifies counsel of record for each party.

/s/Heather Gebelin Hacker

HEATHER GEBELIN HACKER

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 5 of 5   PageID 2800
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95   Filed 01/31/22    Page 5 of 5   PageID 2800

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.95.0.pdf

Size

196,796 bytes

SHA-256

bf50f880d56525c4edb4c6ff4b7f1d2e126db7a310b267a530b2209cfda09e4a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.95.0.pdf

Original

archive.org