Document: 405 U.S. 365 92 S.Ct. 1062 31 L.Ed.2d 298 Oliver T. FEIN, Petitioner,v.SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM LOCAL BOARD NO. 7, YONKERS, N.Y., et al. No. 70—58. Argued Oct. 12, 1971. Decided March 21, 1972. Syllabus Following petitioner's classification as a conscientious objector by his local Selective Service Board, the State Director requested an appeal. Petitioner was notified but not furnished with basis for appeal or given opportunity to reply. The board unanimously classified petitioner I—A and rejected claim, without stating any reasons therefor. entitled under regulations national board, National Director, on request, did note I—A, no given. There is outstanding induction order petitioner, who brought this pre-induction suit challenging, due process grounds, constitutionality of procedures. District Court dismissed complaint, finding barred § 10(b)(3) Military Act 1967, Appeals affirmed. That section provides that decision 'shall be final, except where authorized,' also final.' It further '(n)o judicial review shall made processing registrant . defense criminal prosecution after has responded either affirmatively negatively report induction,' then go question jurisdiction only when there in fact classification.' By statute enacted September 1971, trial, personal appearance before and, statement adverse decision. Ensuing changes regulations, effective December 1971 1972, provide procedural features complained were lacking. Held: 1. Section forecloses preinduction used its discretion judgment determining facts arriving at registrant. Clark v. Gabriel, 393 256, 89 424, 21 418, followed; Oestereich System Local 233, 414, 402, distinguished. In such case registrant's confined situations he asserts where, induction, seeks writ habeas corpus. Pp. 372—377. 2. Petitioner's immediate assured, however, light intervening statutory change, new thereunder, change Government's position, albeit post-induction case, concede some necessary 'meaningful' administrative claim met criteria placed him prima facie within exemption. 377 381. 430 F.2d 376, Michael B. Standard, New York City, petitioner. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold respondents. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 Fein doctor medicine. February 1969, filed United States Southern York. Jurisdiction asserted federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331, civil rights 1343, federal-officer 1361. challenged procedures sought declaratory injunctive relief would prevent into military service. defendants are Fein's Yonkers, York, Appeal Board District, Board. 2 unreported memorandum decision, complaint want jurisdiction. A divided panel Second Circuit 376 (1970). Certiorari granted, 401 953, 91 975, 236 (1971), so might consider important whether 50 App. 460(b)(3),1 permits challenge 3 * Fein, born May 5, 1940, registered Yonkers age 18. He assigned II—S student deferment during undergraduate years Swarthmore College subsequently, period attendance Case-Western Reserve University School Medicine. Upon graduation from medical school, II—A occupational because internship Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital. 4 while still intern, wrote 'to declare myself war institution which propagates war, military.' received SSS Form 150 objectors. promptly completed returned form board. 5 stated: believes Supreme Being. beliefs objection springs include concepts 'human beings primarily 'good," goodness 'can realized, if human allowed fulfill their potential,' 'all fundamentally equal, terms value beings.' War violates 'this essential being all men .' 'fosters irresponsibility inhuman cruel acts.' 'demands style life, violent hierarchical. curbs extinguishes rather than expands man's potential.' 'substance my stems common foundation religions. Thus merely moral code, ideals emanate centuries religious tradition.' attributes shaping four principal sources: parents, church formerly belonged (a Lutheran body), movement, 'in power values ethical force,' rejects 'violent force' perhaps self loved one. His articulated 18, began formulate them Swarthmore. Then followed trip South; break church; summer Germany learned 'biased American journalism about Cuba'; helping organize students Cuba; interest SNCC; work slums San Francisco; settling Cleveland's 'Negro ghetto' first year school; 'full commitment non-violence'; contact Students Democratic Society, provided 'a framework working out justice equality'; 'commitment cooperative living poor community (which) stands mature expression beliefs.' 6 receiving letters supportive invited appear personally it. November 15, 1967. After interview denied I—O 'at time.' Inasmuch held classification, action consistent Regulation 32 CFR 1623.2 providing lowest class eligible. 7 1968, reclassified I—A. immediately asked another request granted appeared 27. thus gave desired classification. 8 On June pursuant 1626.1, requesting stating, 'It our qualify objector.' Notice Dr. mail. seeking indicating Director's appeal' No explanation forthcoming. 9 forwarded file Accompanying so-called 'brief.' This, conceded,2 summary prepared lay employee unanimous 4—0 vote 20, status. stated reclassification. 10 Under 1627.33 take presidential, national, state vote. position. Accordingly, July behalf 1627.1(a). letter detailed. emphasized above-stated way life those had guided him. should clear, I am willing serve country, ativities conscience.' outlined proceedings listed five claimed inequities: (1) board's rejection, upon classification; (2) failure challenge; (3) absence submit supplemental information forwarded; (4) rebut appeal; (5) 11 ordered 6. 12 complied noted canceled. again reasons. now advised Class 'was based contained (his) selective service file.' 13 26, 3—0, reason stated. 14 been issued. 15 instituted suit. alleged governing violated Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment they appeal, subsequent denying acted unconstitutionally failing statements reasons, permit additional material consideration boards, refusing 16 reach merits constitutional claims. While expressing concern ability establish jurisdiction, court assumed arguendo, done so, concluded 10(b)(3). 17 affirmed, F.2d, 377—380, relying, Court, 402 (1968); 418 Boyd Clark, 287 F.Supp. 561 (SDNY 1968), aff'd, 316, 553, 511 (1969). One judge, separate concurrence, 380, thought failed jurisdictional amount required 1331. third citing same cases majority, dissented issue; have ruled favor. 380—388. II 18 pivots, course, meaning 10(b)(3), Court's decisions Oestereich, Boyd, supra, Breen 396 460, 90 661, 24 653 19 states flatly authorized final. provides, 'No ..' Even then, 20 finality language conscription statutes prior 1967 Act. See Draft 1917, 4, 40 Stat. 80; Training 10(a)(2), 54 893; 1948, 62 619. construed language, congressional intent restrict scope deprive access courts. See, example, Estep States, 327 114, 66 423, L.Ed. 567 (1946), McKart 395 185, 1657, 23 194 But 'no fact' situation. Estep, U.S., 122—123, S.Ct., 427; McKart, 196, 1664. 'except' clause came prompt reaction provoked Circuit's Wolff Bd., 372 817 (1967). H.R.Rep.No.267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 30—31; 113 Cong.Rec. 15426.4 22 amended, challenged. refrained striking down grounds. held, pre-injunction available who, divinity student, wrongfully exemption To rule otherwise 'is construe unnecessary harshness.' And, one, we believe, suggests can sustain literal reading.' This construction, it said, leaves 'unimpaired normal operations Act.' 238, 417, 418. Gutknecht 295, 303, 506, 510, 532 (1970), reference 'unusual circumstances' Oestereich. companion Gabriel other hand, asserting claim. said: 'Oestereich, unconditionally Here, contrast, doubt authority appellee challenges, inescapably involves determination exercise judgment. allow determinations precisely kind 'litigious interruptions manpower' (113 15426 (report Senator Russell Conference Committee action)) Congress 10(b)(3).' 258—259, 426. 25 upheld. Id., 259, Douglas, separately concurring, hypothetical different view observed: 26 'But takes extreme said flout law, Bd. (393 402), warrant actions.' 260, 427. 27 complemented later respect statutorily Kolden 397 47, 811, 33 Finally, affirmed here, (1969), single decided just weeks before. registrants, each ground discriminated against financially unable attend college. They contest own classifications. 29 Breen, together principles (a) does foreclose rare instance action, unrelated deferment, deprives which, concededly, (b) more situation authoritatively, latter confined—and constitutionally proseuction these accommodated commands several provisions expressed litigious interruption process. III 30 These do automatically decide case. doctor, unlike cannot objectively established conceded focuses discretionary process, necessarily challenges very claims, presentation adversely affected. aspect concerned Harlan. 239, 417; 468—469, 666—667, 653. grounds presented 'opportunity protracted delay' system's issue beyond competence hear determine. view, commanded member We conclude line drawn between one inferentially, other, appropriate place face bar distinguish availability unavailability review. therefore adhere cases. that, measured controlling. Unlike registrants status factually assured objective criteria. was, product 'process' 'system classification,' stressed oral argument.5 turned 'on weight credibility testimony,' Douglas concurrence 426, And 'dependent act board.' 258, 34 strikes us, representative category review, tend promote intended prevent. 15426. ideally fit determiantion. 35 persuaded, suggested,6 grant equates involved Breen. Objective certainty lacking; addition, respective rulings two boards themselves evaluation yet opposite true result favorable reversed, extraneous circumstances apart underlying 36 find merit argument, apparently time determination, amenable prescribed terms, makes final subject see confinement right alone nullify regulations' express appellate well furthermore, specific President's 37 conclusion reached detail propositions, urged respondents, demonstrated presence arguments premature presently order. IV 38 All mean, assures Events since inception trial indicate otherwise: 39 A. Statute. Pub.L. 92—129, 101(a)(36), 85 353, approved 28, following section, 471a (1970 ed. Supp. I), added Act, renamed 'Procedural 41 'Sec. 22. hereby declared purpose guarantee fair hearing informal expeditious 42 '(b) Pursuant rules President may prescribe— 43 '(1) Each afforded person testify present evidence regarding 44 '(4) event registrant, making shall, furnish brief written decision.' 45 addition not, purport retroactive. 46 Emerging Regulations. implementation undergoing change. Some amendments promulgated 10, Fed.Reg. 23374—23385. Others 11, 5120—5127. From appears all, nearly complains changed administratively. Specifically: When taken 'he taking appeal.' notify writing therefor, advise §§ 1626.3(a) (b). At evidence, discuss point classes thinks direct attention overlooked insufficient weight. will assist represented anyone acting attorney witnesses. 1624.4(e) (d). If classifies requested, record therefor file. inform mails notice 1626.4(i). director's appearance. 1627.3(d). witnesses, bearing There, too, placed, proper 1627.4(c) (e). 1627.4(h). 47 Thus, procedure part complaints one's inability classifications, stages alleviated indeed, eliminated. 48 C. Change Position. adoption respondents acknowledged relatively recent authority' exemplified Haughton, 413 736 (CA9 1969), effect articulate denial fatal flaw status.7 Brief 52 53. rationale review8 exemption, veracity issue. 49 appropriately noted, sense appeals convictions 12(a), U.S.C.App. 462(a). accordingly took position authority, however support justify exception classifying registrants. here Joseph cert. 404 820, 65, Government '(a)lthough (of Haughton progeny) finds little early precedent think contend erroneous.' notes requirement 'seems fully regulatory point.' Memo 13, 14. 51 conviction obvious significance ever called unless until requirements fulfilled. Whether necessitates complete reprocessing matter leave authroities. observe obvious, namely, frivolous. 53 Affirmed. POWELL REHNQUIST 55 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 56 Today approves construction raises serious questions Doctor appealed, extraordinary action.2 I-A. It, 57 explained anture 'hearing' Morgan 304 1, 18—19, 58 773, 776, 82 1129: 'The embraces reasonable know claims opposing party meet them. argument implies opportunity; barren Those quasijudicial proceeding aimed control activities fairly what proposes heard proposals issues command.' 59 Mullane Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 306, 313, 70 652, 656, 94 865; Jenkins McKeithen, 411, 1843, 404; Greene MeElroy, 360 474, 493, 79 1400, 1411, 1377; Baltimore Ohio R. Co. 349, 368 369, 797, 807—808, 80 1209. 60 property rights—rates stockyard services. protects 'life' 'liberty' 'property.' Kwong Hai Chew Colding, 344 590, 596 598, 73 472, 477—478, 97 576. man, contrary scruples, forced overseas battle, deprived 'liberty,' 'life.' 61 orders full object, most reluctant defer effect. Opp Cotton Mills Administrator, 312 126, 152—153, 524, 535—536, 624; Illinois 291 457, 463, 471, 473, 78 909; Londoner City County Denver, 210 373, 385, 708, 713, 1103. Judicial scrutiny particularly close conditioned submitting risk substantial penalties prove validly made. Oklahoma Operating Love, 252 331, 338, 64 596; Ex parte Young, 209 123, 441, 714. Cf. Reisman Caplin, 375 440, 446—450, 84 508, 512—514, 459. require less liberty stake.3 How possibly affirm below dimension problem? As respects relegated meticulous resolution process? downgrading tolerated 'property' case; why mindful stake? 63 puirports induction. represents response widespread seriously impede manpower Armed Forces. remarks Russell, read literally. 'For purports suspend corpus vehicle reviewing everyone agrees intent.' 417. must interpreted exceptional involving clear departure mandate.' 416. Because Oestereich's employed unauthorized 'lawless' courts below, relying ministerial (IV-D) (II-S) (I-O) committed contemplates complex evidentiary factual 10(b) insulate Were complaining discontinue distinction significant. 65 I-O (rather IV-D II-S) stripped Indeed, majority lower heavy reliance proposition, demonstrates applicability Gabriel's 'evaluating deserved.' basic deny 67 expressly 'sustained board." 426 (emphasis supplied). 68 mandatory awarded him—subject, accordance lawful, obtained could removed accord lawful crucial similarity both preliminary hurdle demonstrating fitness 69 nature 'blatantly lawless,' away per se, doing manner mandate 1(c) 451(c), system administered 'which undisputed 'fair just' agency liberty.4 meaningful, appear, apprised chance reply none rights. informed own, appealing, submitted statement. 1626.12. never even reclassification, defalcation Solicitor error similar context. Memorandum 48. Lenhard 1013, 1296, 477. 71 Like Oestereich's, therefore, 'unrelated granting continuing exemption,' 237, instead fairness itself. himself characterizes attack 'constitutional' guarantees says implicit unlawful employ fundamental scheme use delinquency deprivation. 72 literalness treats 'does violence of' misconstrues thrust presents itself 'basically lawless.' admittedly effectively entire panoply remedies guaranteed put wherein meaningful become virtual impossibility. MARSHALL, whom STEWART joins, 74 dissent. Today's holding reinterprets (1968), principle serves sensible purpose. preserved, rooted well. 75 correctly observes, foreclosed constitutes absolute Having adopted reaffirmed interpretation cases, need today sort 76 holds 'claimed (is) criteria.' Ante, 376. confess altogether understand key words majority's test. fathom enough test sense. Although System, ask (CO) loses lawsuit entitlement CO 'factually conceded' 'objectively certain.' litigation. approach ignores actual 'objective (the registrant's) status' exists. Obid. recast narrowly. 77 'upon itself, mean turns unconceded claims—as opposed 'objectively' determined legal claims—pre-induction barred. heart permitted certainty' Obviously, suggested proscribes 'of registrant.' Nor avoid 'unnecessary harshness' concedes Where certain,' prosecute refuses submits brings 'least jeopardized limitations 251, 424 (Stewart, J., dissenting). harsher burden falls whose ultimate free conceded. faced enormous uncertainties induction; illegal anticipating through corpus, uncertain prospects make unlikely massive dislocations (e.g., giving up job, leaving school). short, theory helps wrong people.1 viable problem found comparing day, (1968). 'inescapably judgment'; thus, refused claimed, facts, Co However, purportedly valid disciplinary regulation, conflict statute. supra.2 For clearer difference me (and Breen) general application, validity competently adjudicate procedures, invalid Constitution. stake 'processing classifying' individual registrant,3 prescribing substantially Gabriel. former Chief Judge Lumbard dissent '(T)he challenge(d) claiming regulation deprive(d) higher authority. difference, deem significant, posed (Selective Service) regulation—the provision—and command, exemption.' 382 81 implemented 1626 seq., arguably Clause, 'surely fortiori review.' Ibid. relied rules, valid, application. judgmental individualized presumptively correct allegedly lawless unconstitutional procedures.4 facial here. neither nor inquiry look judgments (Nor dispute actually here.) 83 generally applied invalid, competent benefit group Congress' apparent purposes passing directed narrowly presented, recognize integral machinery designed raise army expeditiously. reflected related assumptions Congress. First, regularity system. valid—where acknowledged—individual 'classification processing' presumed correct, unwarranted interference orderly More generally, wanted elaborate duplicative premises justifying ban undercut particular permitted. Where, challenged—where presumption question—pre-induction suited frist instance, duplicate Of correctness issue, usually exists, inappropriate. laymen unconstitutional. Without body deciding raises. 243, 419. (Harlan, concurring result). harsh result, odds spirit, letter, many decisions. remand prescribe. modified President. President, motion, determine inclusion for, training title civilian participation form: Provided, herein reserved 460(b)(3). amended 129, 101(a)(26), 351, Sept. amendment, portion quoted above. Tr. Oral.Arg. provision 1627.1(b). S.Rep.No.209, 10; U.S.Code Cong. Admin. News, p. 1308, observation Witmer 348 375, 377, 392, 393, 99 428 (1955). Oral Arg. 16—18. Edwards, 450 (CA1 1971); Lenhard, 437 936 (CA2 1970); Scott Commanding Officer, 431 1132 (CA3 Broyles, 423 1299 (CA4 Stetter, 445 472 (CA5 Washington, 392 (CA6 1968); Lemmens, 619 (CA7 Cummins, 425 646 (CA8 Pacheco, 433 914 (CA10 1970). Gonzales 407, 415, 409, 467 reads pertinent follows: title, Except somewhat cryptic '(i)t courts, zealous exaltation safeguarded liberties. e.g., Poole State, 244 Ark. 1222, 1225, S.W.2d 628, 630: acquire possess protect inherent inalienable sanction Arkansas Clay 403 698, 2068, 810; Mulloy 398 410, 416, 1766, 1771, 362; 467; Simmons 397, 405, 401, 453. McElroy, 1129; 368—369, 1209; Thompson, 1265, 1271 (CA3); Cabbage, 1037, 1039—1041 (CA6); (CA8); Owen, 415 383, 388—389 Wiener 302 266, 270 (D.Del.). gathering processes 'interrupted' distinctively minimal extent. 'Litigious interruption' comes ordinary litigation, delays built Federal Rules. interruptive significantly shortened lawsuits concessions stage (as Oestereich), day saved, but, duration insignificant. relies summarily citation improper met—we improper, simple indicate. overburdened significance. Since notice, system, notes: claims.' 377. indeed ironic. absent knowing lawful.

Category: 2