Document: 395 U.S. 185 89 S.Ct. 1657 23 L.Ed.2d 194 Jack Frederick McKART, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 403. Argued Feb. 27, 1969. Decided May 26, George C. Pontikes, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Francis X. Beytagh, Asst. Sol. Gen., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL, delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was indicted willfully and knowingly failing to report submit induction into Armed Forces United States.1 At trial, petitioner's only defense that he should have been exempt from military service because 'sole surviving son' a family whose father had killed in action while serving States.2 The District Court held could not raise failed exhaust administrative remedies provided by Selective Service System. Accordingly, petitioner convicted sentenced three years' imprisonment. Appeals affirmed, with one judge dissenting. States v. McKart, F.2d 906 (C.A.6th Cir. 1968). We granted certiorari. 393 922, 256, 21 258 (1968). I. 2 facts are dispute. registered his local board shortly after 18th birthday thereafter completed classification questionnaire. On form indicated 'the sole son which or more sons daughters were * *.' February 25, 1963, placed him Class I—A, available service; made no attempt appeal classification.3 3 March 2, 1964, ordered pre-induction physical, but do so. He declared delinquent on 11, 1964. report, instead wrote letter indicating moral beliefs prevented cooperating replied sending claiming conscientious objector status. also referred indication original questionnaire requested further information subject. 4 20, returned blank form, stating did wish be objector. In response board's request about claim son, World War II. board, consulting State Director, again requesting father. supplied some information. forwarded this who reopen classification.4 canceled order reclassified IV—A, appropriate registrant exempted as son. remained until 14, 1966. 5 Early 1966, learned death mother. After checking I—A. rested decision theory IV—A became improper when 'family unit' ceased exist physical. induction. and, investigation, criminal prosecution followed.5 6 think it clear exemption originated Act 1948, c. 625, § 6(o), 62 Stat. 613. As originally enacted, section '(w)here armed forces States.' amended extend fathers action. 78 296. now reads relevant part follows: 7 '(W)here died line duty such shall inducted 50 U.S.C. App. 456(o). 8 There is question entitled an before issue whether her death, end immediate unit,' ended exemption. 9 found cases discussing aspect 6(o).6 applicable System Regulation, 32 CFR 1622.40(a)(10) (1969), merely repeats language statute. System's interpretations uniform,7 although i present case National Director took position 'inasmuch there family, believed (petitioner) would qualify status.' must, therefore, decide what essentially first impression. Our examination legislative history 6(o) indicates interpretation fails effectuate fully purposes Congress mind providing 10 statute provides conditions, two explicit implicit, upon terminate. may volunteer service, national emergency war declared, or, implicitly, cease birth brother. says nothing continuing existence unit, even though other provisions laws make similar conditions contexts.8 11 argument conditioning continued unit based structure certain references history. These comments indicate purpose provide 'solace consolation' remaining members guaranteeing presence See S.Rep.No.1119, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., (1964); Hearings Subcommittee House Committee Services H.R. 2664, 1st 3442—3443 (1963), U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News, p. 2539. When left comfort, argued, drafted. However, our sparse discloses several exemption, depend unit. 12 Perhaps chief among these desire avoid extinguishing male through S.Rep.No. 1119, supra; Hearing Senate 30—31 (1963); 110 Cong.Rec. 15218 (1964) (remarks Senator Keating). Other mentioned financial support members, fairness has lost country, feeling is, under normal circumstances, limit sacrifice must country. supra, at 30—31; 3442—3443; 109 24889 (1963). 13 most can said circumstances multiple Depriving might frustrate purposes, certainly others. Therefore, given beneficent basis we cannot believe intended factor, crucial. mother operate deprive right service. erred classifying I—A ordering III. 14 Government maintains, however, invalidity subsequent refusal According Government, failure reclassification constitutes therefore bar all judicial review. For reasons set out below, agree. 15 doctrine exhaustion well established jurisprudence law. generally K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 20.01 et seq. (1958 ed., 1965 Supp.); L. Jaffe, Judicial Control Action 424—458 (1965). 'that relief supposed threatened injury prescribed remedy exhausted.' Myers Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 41, 51, 58 459, 463, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). applied number different situations like doctrines, subject numerous exceptions.9 Application specific requires understanding its particular scheme involved. 16 common application where procedures exclusive. (1938) (National Labor Relations Act). making exclusive, statutory requirement exclusivity so explicit, difficult understand. A primary course, avoidance premature interruption process. agency, trial court, created applying instance. normally desirable let agency develop necessary factual background decisions based. And since frequently discretionary nature require expertise, chance exercise discretion apply expertise. course efficient process go forward without than permit parties seek aid courts various intermediate stages. very same lie behind rules sharply limiting interlocutory appeals. 17 Closely related above notion peculiar separate entity invested powers duties. ordinarily interfere action, else clearly exceeded jurisdiction. Professor Jaffe puts it, '(t)he expression executive autonomy.'10 This reason particularly pertinent function sog ht reviewed involve Congress, special 18 Some equally one, party seeks review appealed Particularly, hindered litigant allow record, addition, justifications requiring sort dangers Certain practical notions efficiency come play well. complaining successful vindicating rights If required pursue remedies, never intervene. autonomy discover correct own errors. Finally, possible frequent deliberate flouting processes weaken effectiveness encouraging people ignore procedures. 19 cases, tailored fit peculiarities system created. heart boards, charged instance registering those laws. 1613.1 seq., §§ 1621.1—1623.10 (1969). Upon being classified state 1626.2 instances, President, 1627.3 No appeal.11 considered board. 1624.3, 1625.14, 1626.41, 1627.8 20 stage during process, expected induction, see 1628.11 complete physical examination. passes examination, will next, last, step center point, end. case, prosecution. Although Universal Military Training Act, stood time boards 'final,' long ago 'no fact' classification. Estep States, 327 114, 123, 66 423, 427, 90 567 (1946). It all, exceptions, refused prosecuted, submitted release habeas corpus.12 22 raises question. here faced resort courts—all closed asked hold utilize process—an appeal—bars defending grounds raised appeal. agree proper case. First remember use exceedingly harsh. defendant often stripped defense; jail having any assertedly invalid order. deprivation occurs affected person affirmatively asking assistance attempting impose sanctions him. Such result tolerated unless interests underlying rule outweigh severe burden imposed if denied review.13 registrants their claims boards.14 ask, then, governmental interest compelling enough Even viewed isolation, ask allowing similarly situated bypass seriously impair ability perform functions. 24 seen, solely interpretation. resolution does expertise board; matter discretion.15 sense, many questions discretion, both boards.16 Petitioner's take am inistrative appeals deprived opportunity appellate resolve Since significantly aided additional sort, why prosecution.17 simply overwhelming need court finally instance, least prosecution.18 25 thus Government's induce remedies. fears increase litigation consequent danger thwarting System, rapid mobilization manpower. proposition will, processes, errors much litigation. compel processes. speculates risk carry stigma denial 26 not, dire view likely consequences today's decision. outset, doubt foolhardy deny t taking chances possibility five years jail. sanction sufficient ensure great majority deciding continue challenge classifications. And, holding every advantage For, said, classifications expertise; comes court. Moreover, convinced rather small class thought ultimate success enhanced thereby. short, contributes fairly low themselves appears significant served reaches courts, foreclose 27 Falbo 320 549, 64 346, 88 305 (1944), (1946), insofar they concern doctrine, holding. Neither nor decided Court,19 stand blindly Indeed, involved ministerial claims, pursued laws.20 IV. 28 validity barred pass preinduction giving last reject points fact large numbers rejected mental reasons, asserts trials rendered unnecessary allowed 29 answers argument. First, above, up escape defects leap immediately defend But importantly, comply examination21 criminally prosecuted comply.22 deems important smooth functioning unfit weeded earliest moment, enforce examinations sanctions. chosen examination; have. hm challenging 30 regard registrant's civilian work camp. noted reported camp reasons. Court, 'narrow presented (was) authorized propriety wilful violation directing selective process.' U.S., 554, 349. 31 limited secure Estep, reported, accepted inducted. fear litigious dealt problem cases. Clark Gabriel, 424, 418 (1968); Oestereich Local Board, 233, 414, 402 here. 33 concerned unnecessary. But, ample means examinations. regulations responded Gibson 329 338, 67 301, 91 331 way An classification, raised, prosecution; today 34 reverse judgment below remand entry acquittal. 35 ordered. 36 Reversed remanded. 37 DOUGLAS, concurring. 38 principle Board 402, dispose plainly divinity student. Yet because, burned draft card, 'delinquent' Service. challenged civil suit review; relief. 39 review, tendered Oestereich. survivin' hardly 'son' dead. indeed heir charitably exposed warfare. 40 stage, follows fortiori obey Act's mandate. 41 truth acted 'lawless' manner;* error egregious, travesty justice registrant—whether sophisticated—to designed quite categories 42 WHITE, concurring result. 43 Court's opinion, I understand dispense necessity presenting consideration exactly this, decision, avenue totally bypassing using alternative boards. Any contrary inconsistent well-established responsible 'an consider matter, ruling, action.' Unemployment Compensation Commission Alaska Aragon, 143, 155, 245, 251, 136 20.06 (1958). presentation litigant's task courts. contrary, within exhausted turn See, e.g., Sing Tuck, 161, 621, 48 917 (1904); M., St. P. P.R. Co. Risty, 276 567, 575, 396, 399, 72 703 (1928). 44 presents obstacle facet facets, admits exceptions warrant, see, Donato 302 468 (C.A.9th 1962), conclusion disregarded broader ground law Questions past, immune requirements. emphasized deference matters construction,1 Udall Tallman, 380 1, 16, 85 792, 801, 616 (1965), refuting contention somehow beyond experts e give rise considerations underlie doctrine. 45 stop far short broad strokes used respect, Undoubtedly, prerequisite Yakus 321 660, 834 so.2 absence requirement, impermissible encroachment bailiwick situation stopped level machinery. Rather, scope received attention Directors channels formal informal ratification taken justification entertain 6(o). 'Any manner fail neglect refuse execution title *, rules, regulations, directions pursuant shall, conviction district competent jurisdiction, punished imprisonment fine $10,000, 12, 622, amended, 1967 (see 81 100, 1(a)), U.S.C.App. 462 (1964 Supp. III). 'Except period date enactment 1964 amendment subsection (July 7, 1964), subsequently injuries disease incurred terms volunteers induction.' 613, appear contest new 1624.1, 1624.2 then determines reconsider 1624.2(c), (d) Following 1624.2(e), 1625.13 Appeal dissent Regulations written Director. 1625.3(a) second time, confirmed advice latter communicated Attorney. indictment followed. Cf. Pickens Cox, 282 784 (C.A.10th 1960). Shortly amendment, change status full Operations Bulletin 263 (August 1964). That later rescinded issued instructions concerning Section 6(h) 1967, 102, authorizes President deferment 'persons children, wives whom maintain bona fide relationship homes.' 611, general effect. Had wished condition seem logical defined unit.' example, disclosed maternal grandparents paternal grandmother still living. Nothing relatives 'family.' Layton Fine, Draft Exhaustion Remedies, 56 Geo.L.J. 315, 322—331 (1967). 425 Notice Classification SSS Form 110, informs appeal, inform judicially doctrines recently enacted 10(b)(3) 104. part: 'No processing except respondd either negatively Provided, jurisdiction herein reserved assigned registrant.' 460(b)(3) occasion interpret context challenges certiorari Breen 394 997, 1592, 774, cert. granted, applicability allegedly 'punitive' reclassifications. (1944). n. supra makes reference 'litigious interruption' affect administration 245 252, 420—424, (1968) (dissenting opinion). Of responsibility function. trying properly barred. us, aware reclassify I-A; inquiry useful. Conscientious 6(j), 104, 456(j) III), deferments engaged activities deemed 'to maintenance health, safety, interest,' id., 6(h)(2), 456(h)(2) examples discretion. stronger considers anew. 1626.26. empowered determinations Thompson 86 1967). power intervention registrant. nn. 5, supra. true 235—236, 415 416, (1968), exhausted. receipt notice implications Billings Truesdell, 542, 558, 737, 746, (1944); 349—350, 306—307, (1946); Sunal Large, 332 174, 176, 1588, 1589, 1982 (1947); Cox 442, 445, 448, 68 115, 116, 117, 92 59 (1947). 1628.10, While usually routed machinery 616), evolved regulatory schemes agencies oversight supervision over companies groups individuals. 638. Arguably, kind assuming do, 'legal' too transparent dignified manner. ambiguous uncertain, Logan 233 627, 685, 690, 1121 (1914), agency's interrelationship parts yet 'untried new,' Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. 288 294, 53 350, 358, 77 796 (1933), accord significance. construction 'essentially impression,' ante, 190, importance exhaustion—or exhaust—is, perhaps, accentuated ambiguity statute, role suited afforded questions, thereby facilitating disclosure factors which, germane, highly visible tribunals less familiar scheme. Compare prescribes timing review—'after induction' speak orders suspended pendency seen Procedure 10(c), 704 Under section, inoperative rules. 10(c) APA. laws, covered APA, exhausting rest developed

Category: 1