What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis.
Your task is to determine the specific issue in the case within the broad category of "miscellaneous".

Opinion:
Bernard Edward MOORE, aka Bernard E. “X”, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17486.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
May 2, 1962.
William L. Porter, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Cecil Poole, U. S. Atty., James F. Hewitt, Asst., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before ORR, HAMLEY and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
’ Moore, having been ordered to report for induction by his draft board as required by the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq., refused to report because he claimed to be a conscientious objector and-claimed his draft board erred in classifying him I-A. He was indicted, tried and convicted and is asking us to review the said judgment of conviction. His defense in the lower court was an attack on the correctness, validity, and legality of the proceedings before the selective service board and the Department of Justice. In those proceedings he asserted that as a member of the organization commonly known as the “Black Muslims,” he was a conscientious objector and entitled to exemption from all military training or service. He further asserts that the I-A classification made by the board has no factual support. However, because of the refusal of Moore to report for induction, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. He did not bring himself to “the brink of induction,” and is therefore without standing to assert the invalidity of his classification. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305 (1944); Mason v. United States, 218 F.2d 375 (9th Cir. 1954); Francy v. United States, 217 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1954); Kalpakoff v. United States, 217 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1954); Williams v. United States, 203 F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1953); United States v. Balogh, 160 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1947).
Affirmed.

Question: What is the specific issue in the case within the general category of "miscellaneous"?

Choices:
miscellaneous interstate conflict
other federalism issue (only code as issue if opinion explicitly discusses federalism as an important issue - or if opinion explicity discusses conflict of state power vs federal power)
attorneys (disbarment; etc)
selective service or draft issues (which do not include 1st amendment challenges)
challenge to authority of magistrates, special masters, etc.
challenge to authority of bankruptcy judge or referees in bankruptcy
Indian law - criminal verdict challenged due to interpretation of tribal statutes or other indian law
Indian law - commercial disputes based on interpretation of Indian treaties or law (includes disputes over mineral rights)
Indian law - Indian claims acts and disputes over real property (includes Alaska Native Claims Act)
Indian law - federal regulation of Indian land and affairs
Indian law - state/local authority over Indian land and affairs
Indian law - tribal regulation of economic activities (includes tribal taxation)
other Indian law
international law
immigration (except civil rights claims of immigrants and aliens)
other
not ascertained

Answer: 3