Source: https://casetext.com/case/orloff-v-willoughby
Timestamp: 2020-07-03 17:25:06
Document Index: 151262523

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 454', '§ 91', '§ 91', '§ 81', '§ 94', '§ 11', '§ 81', '§ 91', '§ 454']

Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 | Casetext Search + Citator
FRIENDLY, Chief Judge: In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94, 73 S.Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953),…
Glazier v. Hackel
See United States ex rel. Carafas v. La Vallee, supra, 391 U.S. at 239, 88 S.Ct. 1556; Peyton v. Rowe, supra,…
Full title:ORLOFF v . WILLOUGHBY, COMMANDANT
345 U.S. 83 (1953)
73 S. Ct. 534
holding that commissioning of officers in the Army was a matter of discretion within the province of the President
Summary of this case from Aktepe v. USA
Argued January 13, 1953. Decided March 9, 1953.
Petitioner, a physician educated at government expense and beyond the usual draft age, was inducted into the Army under the Doctors' Draft Law, 50 U.S.C. App. § 454(i), which authorizes special conscription of certain "medical and allied specialist categories." Because of his refusal, on grounds of possible self-incrimination, to state in connection with his application for a commission whether he was or had been a member of the Communist Party, he was not commissioned or given the usual duties of an Army doctor, but was assigned duties as a medical laboratory technician. He applied to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus and for discharge from the Army, on the ground that he had not been assigned the specialized duties or given the commissioned rank to which he claims to be entitled by the circumstances of his induction. Held:
3. One lawfully inducted into the Army may not, through habeas corpus proceedings, obtain a judicial review of his assignments to duty. Pp. 92-94.
The District Court dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. 104 F. Supp. 14. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 195 F.2d 209. This Court granted certiorari. 344 U.S. 873. Affirmed, p. 95.
Answering the petition for habeas corpus, the respondent raised as affirmative defenses that petitioner was subject to military command and that both the subject matter and the person of the petitioner were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and that petitioner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Respondent further stated that his application for a commission still was being processed by military authorities "because of particular statements made by petitioner in his application concerning prior membership or association with certain organizations designated by the Attorney General of the United States on October 30, 1950 pursuant to Executive Order 9835," that the court was without jurisdiction, and that habeas corpus does not lie for the purpose of the case.
We granted certiorari, and in this Court the parties changed positions as nimbly as if dancing a quadrille. The Government here admits that the petitioner is entitled to duties generally within a doctor's field and says that he now has been assigned to such. The petitioner denies that he yet has duties that fully satisfy that requirement. Notwithstanding his position before the trial court, he further says that anyway he must be commissioned and wants this Court to order him commissioned or discharged.
1. This Court, of course, is not bound to accept the Government's concession that the courts below erred on a question of law. They accepted the Government's argument as then made and, if they were right in doing so, we should affirm. We think, however, that the Government is well advised in confessing error and that candid reversal of its position is commendable. We understand that the Army accepts and is governing itself by the Government's present interpretation of its duty toward those conscripted because of professional skills. To separate particular professional groups from the generality of the citizenship and render them liable to military service only because of their expert callings and, after induction, to divert them from the class of work for which they were conscripted would raise questions not only of bad faith but of unlawful discrimination. We agree that the statute should be interpreted to obligate the Army to classify specially inducted professional personnel for duty within the categories which rendered them liable to induction. It is not conceded, however, that particular duty orders within the general field are subject to judicial review by habeas corpus.
2. We cannot comply with the appellant's insistence that we order him to be commissioned or discharged. We assume that he is correct in stating that it has been a uniform practice to commission Army doctors; indeed, until 1950 Congress provided that the Army Medical Corps should consist of ". . . commissioned officers below the grade of brigadier general." 10 U.S.C.A. § 91. But in 1950 Congress repealed § 91 and substituted in its place the following language: "[The Medical Corps] . . . shall consist of Regular Army officers appointed and commissioned therein and such other members of the Army as may be assigned thereto by the Secretary of the Army . . . ." 10 U.S.C. § 81-1. 10 U.S.C. § 94 provides that medical officers of the Army may be assigned by the Secretary of the Army to such duties as the interests of the service demand. Thus, neither in the language of the Universal Military Training and Service Act nor of the Army Reorganization Act referred to above is there any implication that all personnel inducted under the Doctor's Draft Act and assigned to the Medical Corps be either commissioned or discharged.
After he was inducted, petitioner applied for another commission and filed the required loyalty certificate but again refused to supply the requested information. He stated, "I have attended public meetings of the Civil Rights Congress and the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. In 1943, I co-authored a radio play for the latter organization. Over a period of 7 1/2 months I attended classes at the Jefferson School of Social Sciences (ending in the Spring of 1950). With respect to any other organizations contained on the annexed list I am compelled to claim my Federal Constitutional Privilege. However, I have never considered myself an organizational member of any of the aforesaid." As to the question "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party, U.S. A. or any Communist Organization?" he said, "Federal constitutional privilege is claimed."
The President commissions all Army officers. 5 U.S.C. § 11. We have held that, except one hold his appointment by virtue of a commission from the President, he is not an officer of the Army. United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303. Congress has authorized the President alone to appoint Army officers in grades up to and including that of colonel, above which the advice and consent of the Senate is required. 55 Stat. 728, as amended, 57 Stat. 380.
Since 1847, one hundred and six years ago, Army doctors have served only when they have been commissioned to do so as officers. This long-standing Army practice is in harmony with the law as it exists today. 10 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 81-1 and § 91a. The congressional hearings and discussions of the special draft act under which Dr. Orloff was inducted indicate that the law probably never would have been passed but for repeated assurances given the Congress that all doctors drafted and held for service under it would be granted commissions. This, because the law was admitted by its sponsors to be "discriminatory legislation," singling out the medical profession and its allies, and providing for their induction up to 50 years of age, although other people of this age group could not be called into Army service. This discrimination was justified to Congress only on the ground that doctors made to serve under that law would be given at least a first lieutenant's grade in accordance with the century-old practice of the Army. 96 Cong. Rec. 13861. I think the Government breaks faith with the Congress and with the doctors of America in drafting a doctor without granting him a commission.
The Government admits that such has been the practice since the Act of February 11, 1847, 9 Stat. 123, 124-125.
And so for me the central question in this case is whether one who is drafted under the doctors draft statute, 64 Stat. 826, 50 U.S.C. App. (Supp. IV) § 454(i)(1), but who does not, in due course, obtain a commission, of whatever rank, must, as a matter of statutory construction, be discharged from the Army because Congress imposed the condition of such a commission on drafting doctors above the general draft age and the condition has not been fulfilled. That view would be strongly supported by the admission of the Government in the trial court that the "regulations and practice of the United States Army provide that an individual can serve as a doctor of medicine in the United States Army only if he holds a rank as a commissioned officer." Further, if the statements that were made at the hearings and on the floor of the Congress by those who were in charge of the legislation had been made in a formal committee report, this Court could hardly have held that the receipt of a commission was not a condition on keeping in the Army a doctor drafted under these special provisions. Whatever we may think about the loose use of legislative history, it has never been questioned that reports of committees and utterances of those in charge of legislation constitute authoritative exposition of the meaning of legislation. It is hard to believe that the powerful American Medical Association would have failed to oppose vigorously any provisions under which the Army could draft doctors not otherwise draftable as noncommissioned personnel or that the Congress would have adopted any such provision in the face of professional opposition.
Compare Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, par. 7, R. 2, with Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, par. VII, R. 8-9; see R. 23-24.
An independent investigation of all the relevant factors bearing on the legislation, beyond what was brought to our attention, see Hearings before House Committee on Armed Services on H.R. 9554, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 7164, 7166-7167, 7189, 7223; 96 Cong. Rec. 13861, would be necessary to enable one to be confident in rejecting the contention that doctors who were drafted were to obtain a commission. I do not mean to say that mandamus would lie to compel the grant of a commission. That is not the only alternative. The obvious tertium quid is the release of a doctor-draftee who is found unfit for a commission. On the basis of what has been put before us I do not see how we can dispose of the case with complete indifference to this crucial issue. This seems to me the more inadmissible in view of the shifting arguments of the Government, as it has been driven from position to position. Only in its purpose to keep this man in the Army has the Government been undeviating. He could not be drafted under the general draft law; and if a pledge was given to the medical profession, as apparently it was, that a special class of drafted doctors would be duly commissioned, Orloff ought not to be retained in disregard of that pledge. In that case, it is immaterial what quirky notions petitioner may have as to the reasons why a commission has been withheld from him.
holding the military had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the propriety of an Army inductee's “specific assignments to duty”
Summary of this case from Singh v. Carter
holding discrimination claim by officer against military to be nonjusticiable because denial of commission was properly within military discretion
holding that assignment decisions in the military are "not within the power" of courts to review
Summary of this case from Wilhelm v. Caldera
finding that service members may not obtain habeas corpus review of assignments to duty
Summary of this case from Villanueva v. Sec'y of the Navy
finding that it was "not within the power" of the courts to review determination to assign doctor to particular duties in the medical field
ruling that "judges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which . . . grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates"
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (1953), a doctor inducted into the Army was denied a commission as an officer after refusing to divulge whether he was a Communist, as required by a loyalty certificate prescribed for commissioned officers.
Summary of this case from Lefkowitz v. Turley
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (1953), the Court refused to review a military-duty assignment or to order a discharge on the ground that the petitioner there had been unlawfully treated, recognizing that military discretion is not subject to review in the courts.
Summary of this case from Strait v. Laird
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953), the plaintiff, a licensed physician, was inducted into the military under a doctor's draft law, but, unlike other doctors drafted, he was refused a commission as an officer.
Summary of this case from Dillard v. Brown
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 90, 73 S.Ct. 534, 538, 97 L.Ed. 1360 (1962), the Supreme Court held, "Whatever control courts have exerted over tenure or compensation under an appointment, they have never assumed by any process to control the appointing power in either civilian or military positions."
Summary of this case from Rawlins v. United States
In Orloff a physician was inducted into the Army under statutes making medical specialists specially subject to induction.
Summary of this case from Nicholson v. Brown
In Orloff the petitioner had been inducted into the Army pursuant to a statute authorizing conscription of personnel in certain medical and allied specialist categories.
Summary of this case from Crawford v. Cushman
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93, 73 S.Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953) the Court said, without ambiguity or qualification, "But judges are not given the task of running the Army.
Summary of this case from Struck v. Secretary of Defense
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953) the habeas petitioner launched a two-pronged attack on the failure of the Army to grant him a commission and to assign him duties befitting his civilian status as a doctor.
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94, 73 S.Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953), clearly the Supreme Court decision most closely in point, the Court stated it had "found no case where this Court has assumed to revise duty orders as to one lawfully in the [armed] service."
Summary of this case from Cortright v. Resor
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953), discussed in some detail below, the Court considered the merits of a habeas corpus petitioner's claim that he was entitled to be placed in a particular classification or category for military duty purposes even though he requested discharge only in a conditional sense — only if the Army did not assign him to duties within his proper classification.
Summary of this case from Glazier v. Hackel
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953), the Supreme Court declined to review a military call-up order where an abuse of discretion may very well have been involved.
Summary of this case from Raderman v. Kaine
In Orloff v. Willoughby, a doctor in the Army requested, through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, "judicial review of his assignments to duty."
stating that the Army's decision not to award commission to, or alternatively to discharge, a medical specialist is not reviewable
Summary of this case from Natural Resources Defense Council v. Winter
stating that "judges are not given the task of running the Army," and that "[o]rderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters"
Summary of this case from Watch v. Department of Army
In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 90 (1953), relied upon by the government, a doctor was lawfully drafted into the Army. He brought a habeas corpus action, arguing that the Army refused to commission him as an officer, a rank to which he claimed he was entitled under the law that permitted conscription of doctors. He argued that the Army should be ordered to either commission him or discharge him.
Summary of this case from Gengler v. U.S. ex Rel. Dept. of Defense Navy
confirming the President's discretion to issue an officer's commission
warning that "judges are not given the task of running the Army . . . . Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters"
Summary of this case from Castle v. Caldera