‘Unconstitutional’: Coast Guard Reinstates 56 Service Members Fired Over Vaccine Mandate

Secretary Noem: COVID-19 vaccine mandates were 'un-American and a gross violation of personal freedom'

The Department of Homeland Security is celebrating the reinstatement of 56 members of the United States Coast Guard who were discharged for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

Under a mandate issued by then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on August 21, 2021, all service members were required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The mandate was officially rescinded on January 10, 2023, with the Coast Guard following suit a day later. But by that time, more than 8,000 service members had already been discharged for refusing the shots—contributing to the US Armed Forces’ smallest size since World War II.

Only 43 of those discharged re-enlisted under the Biden administration, and many were even forced to repay signing bonuses. One soldier reportedly sold 60 vacation days to repay most of a $7,000 Army signing bonus after being fired for refusing the vaccine.

The reinstatements followed an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which entitled unvaccinated service members to back pay, allowances, bonuses, rank, and seniority in grade. Last week, a three-member panel of the Coast Guard Board for Correction of Military Records voted in favor of reinstating the 56 members based on a recommendation from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

“Fifty-six members of the United States Coast Guard who were kicked out of the service over the COVID-19 vaccine have finally been reinstated with back pay—this is a victory for religious, personal, and medical freedom for all Americans, both in and out of uniform,” Noem said in a statement.

“The last administration’s vaccine mandates were unconstitutional, un-American, and a gross violation of personal freedom,” she added. “It was no way to treat the men and women who put everything on the line to keep our country safe.”

The US Supreme Court has long recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects bodily integrity, including the right to refuse medical treatments.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some bureaucrats bypassed that constitutional protection by pointing to the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, a pastor named Henning Jacobson refused a smallpox vaccine mandated by Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was fined $5—roughly $175 today—and challenged the state in court. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court sided with Massachusetts, ruling that vaccine mandates were legal when deemed necessary for public safety.

But Dr. Simone Gold, the attorney and physician who founded America’s Frontline Doctors, argues that the COVID-19 vaccine mandates did not fall under Jacobson. Unlike smallpox, which was deadly, COVID-19 carried a roughly 99.9% survival rate and posed far less risk to public health.

The vaccines themselves were also different. At the time of Jacobson, vaccines were understood to prevent disease. The CDC redefined “vaccine” in 2015 to mean anything that produces immunity against a specific disease. By late 2021, when it became clear that the COVID-19 mRNA injections neither prevented infection nor guaranteed immunity, the CDC again adjusted the definition—this time describing vaccines as producing protection against disease, in a way similar to a therapeutic treatment rather than a traditional vaccine.