A federal judge in Colorado threw out a lawsuit from two service members seeking to halt the “forcible inoculation” of military employees and prevent the U.S. Department of Defense from requiring vaccinations for people who already contracted COVID-19.

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore found that the plaintiffs had reportedly received or were being considered for exemptions to the military’s vaccine requirement, and even if they did not prevail, there were procedures in place to contest those decisions within the military. Moore determined, therefore, that he was not in a position to consider the claims.

“Plaintiffs’ contention that they may be subject to discipline for refusing to take a vaccine appears to be based on nothing more than speculation,” he wrote in a Jan. 11 order.

Army Staff Sgt. Daniel Robert and Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Hollie Mulvihill filed a federal complaint in August 2021 after U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said he would pursue a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for service members. Austin wrote in a memo that the vaccines were safe and effective, and getting vaccinated would “protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers.”

The lawsuit and its accompanying request for a preliminary injunction launched into anti-vaccine claims, such as calling the COVID-19 vaccines “demonstrably dangerous” and a “deadly unlicensed substance.” They plaintiffs also wrote about “Nazi doctors” and the “infinitesimal risk that COVID-19 poses to young, healthy members of the U.S. military.”

As of mid-December, at least 80 service members had died from the disease. Of those who died, none had been fully vaccinated, while two were partially vaccinated, Military Times reported.

Previously, Moore showed little patience for allegations of “irreparable harm” the plaintiffs insisted they would face should they receive the vaccine.

“Their contention that they will be uniquely harmed from vaccines that, according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], more than 200 million people had received by the time plaintiffs’ Motion was filed, is specious,” Moore wrote shortly after the filing of the lawsuit.

The judge added that, putting aside the plaintiffs’ claims about “natural immunity,” he did not believe they had put forward a compelling argument for him to block the military’s response to the pandemic.

The government responded to the lawsuit by pointing out that immunization requirements are common in the military – beginning with the Continental Army under George Washington – and that vaccines and are essential to preventing the transmission of diseases in close quarters.

“In warfare, disease has historically accounted for more service member deaths than battlefield injuries,” wrote lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice. They explained that Robert has a request for an exemption that is pending, and that Mulvahill already received a temporary medical exemption from the vaccination requirement.

In addition to defending the vaccination policy on the basis of military readiness, the government cast doubt on the plaintiffs’ argument for excusing those with “preexisting COVID-19 exposure” from vaccination.

“With regard to ‘natural immunity’ against COVID-19,” the Justice Department wrote, “DoD’s determination that prior infection does not render a service member automatically exempt from the vaccination requirement is grounded in the CDC’s medical guidance.”

As of Friday, 844,841 people had died of COVID-19 in the United States. In Wisconsin, members of one sector of the military, the National Guard, are being trained as certified nursing assistants for care facilities as the omicron variant of the novel coronavirus continues to drive a surge in infections.

The case is Robert et al. v. Austin et al.