Document: 396 U.S. 460 90 S.Ct. 661 24 L.Ed.2d 653 Timothy J. BREEN, Petitioner,v.SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NO. 16, BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT, et al. No. 65. Argued Nov. 19, 1969. Decided Jan. 26, 1970. Emanuel Margolis, Stamford, Conn., for petitioner. William Ruckelshaus, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case raises a question concerning right young man ordered to report induction into Armed Forces challenge legality that order prior reporting duty. Petitioner Breen while enrolled in Berklee School Music Boston, Massachusetts, was given II-S student classification by his local draft board, and deferred from military service pursuant provisions Military Selective Service Act 1967, 81 Stat. 100, 50 U.S.C. App. § 451 seq. (1964 ed. Supp. IV). According an agreed stipulation facts, i November 1967 he surrendered registration card minister at public gathering 'for sole purpose protesting United States involvement war Vietnam.' Shortly thereafter board declared 'delinquent' failing have possession same time reclassified him I-A—available service.1 He appealed this reclassification appropriate Appeal Board, appeal pending filed suit District Court February 1968, seeking injunction against any possible on ground delinquency invalid. The respondent moved dismiss want jurisdiction, relying 10(b)(3) which provides that: 2 'No judicial review shall be made or processing registrant boards, President, except as defense criminal prosecution instituted under section 12 title, after has responded either affirmatively negatively * *.'2 460(b)(3) ed., 3 granted motion decision Appeals.3 While pending, we rendered our Oestereich v. Bd., 393 233, 89 414, 21 402 (1968), holding did not bar preinduction circumstances presented case. Although argued controlled own case, Appeals affirmed Court's dismissal suit, with one judge dissenting, cover therefore required suit. 406 F.2d 636 (C.A.2d Cir. 1969). We petition certiorari, 394 997, 1592, 22 774 (1969), and, because conclude does control reverse judgment Appeals. 4 In preparing ministry protest Vietnam 'delinquent.' then enjoin induction, claiming being inducted contrary clear statutory requirement students 'shall exempt training service' Act, U.S.C.App. 456(g). held since Congress had unambiguously said were drafted there no indication statute such exemptions could denied 'delinquency,' Oestereich's unlawful would interpreted pre-induction thereby force submit illegal risk possibility regain status. 5 present petitioner argues he, like Oestereich, should relies 6(h)(1) 6 'Except otherwise provided paragraph, President shall, rules regulations may prescribe, provide deferment persons satisfactorily pursuing full-time course instruction college, university, similar institution learning who request deferment.' 456(h) (1) 7 complaint alleged 20-year-old clearly qualified deferment. Government never contested Breen's factual allegations status, nor it is defendant reason 'delinquency.' As do find intended allow boards deprive their deferments reasons relied upon 8 concluding felt reference 'such (the President) prescribe' authorized revocation violations regulations. F.2d, 638. That conclusion must rejected several reasons. explicit language 'shall' undergraduate terms itself, set forth specific conditions meet qualify deferment.4 'rules regulations' only authorize additional administrative procedures necessary insure all are 6. There nothing itself indicates congressional desire add subtract factors specified determining when deferred.5 legislative history need met warrant Prior law stated according presidential regulation practice subject discretion boards.6 committee reports floor debates show primary amendments eliminate option clear, uniform standards deferments.7 When thus acted replace discretionary requirements deferments, specifically way indicate status failed possess certificate.8 Finally, contention 'delinquency' proper Gutknecht States, 295, 506, 532, been Congress. 9 Attorney General advances another argument distinguishing supra. points out 'exemption' service, best 'deferment.' On basis observation urges preclude cases exception certain where exemption claimed. fail see relevant practical legal differences between deferments. effect type cannot long remains so classified. those 'who liable selection registered classified, but exempted.' 455(a)(1) IV).9 (Emphasis added.) Thus crucial distinction classifications individuals presently subject, exemption. 10 also rational exists scheme merely postpone will serve place 'outside manpower pool.' Brief Respondents 20—21. A careful reading entire consistent preserved. '(n)o continue cause ceases exist.' 456(k). Many 'exemptions' absolute, implies, conditioned factors. ministerial lose if withdraws study preparation ministry. Similarly veterans can declares national emergency. 456(b). other hand absolutely assurance individual simply obligation postponed. So inducted, past maximum age liability effectively compulsory service. 24th birthday,10 extreme hardship dependents employment interest. 456(h)(1) 1964 permanently deferring others. Both accomplish purpose, inducting registrants particular time. 11 consequently unable distinguish Oestereich. both situations fact involved 'clear departure Board its mandate,' supra, 238, 416, construed require test order. below reversed remanded further proceedings conformity opinion. Reversed remanded. 13 HARLAN, concurring. 14 I fully agree today's available here, subscribe much opinion, rest different footing. 15 appears make availability turn lawfulness board's action or, put way, certainty reviewing court determine prevail merits classification. hand, forward my separate 239—245, 417, 420—421, turns, what amounts advance merits, rather nature made. 16 sought claims procedure employed 'not statute,' 'inconsistent exemption,' 'facially unconstitutional,' U.S., 239, S.Ct., 417. pointed scrutiny contentions, unlike 'factual decisions' pertaining registrant, 'opportunity protracted delay' operations System—the concern enacting 10(b)(3), 241, 418. To avoid 'serious constitutional problems' implicit depriving 'his liberty without opportunity competent forum' invalid, 243, 419, review. Viewed perspective industinguishable, makes challenges board. 17 petitioner's challenges, agree, majority, difference through operation lost II—S whereas IV—D divinity More generally, used here now unauthorized statute, 532 (1970). 18 basis, concur reversal below. 19 BRENNAN, 20 414 joined Stewart's dissent expressing view designed permit connection prosecutions habeas corpus proceedings. 245, 420—421. But continued adherence construction foreclosed entitled Therefore, too 'fail deferments,' join STEWART, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring part. For expressed insofar holds jurisdiction entertain sought. not, however, See ante, p. 314, 515 (concurring judgment). undertaken 32 CFR 1642.12. provision appear submitted already 235, 415, 416—417, (1968). During pendency upheld induction. stayed conditions. 'A person (this provision) until completes baccalaureate degree, fails pursue instruction, attains twenty-fourth anniversary date birth, whichever first occurs.' raised these restrict finding needs action, IV), 1948, 6(h), 62 611, amended. promulgated authority permitted suggested guidelines. §§ 1622.25, 1622.25a (1967 ed.). H.R.Rep. 267, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 25—26 (1967); H.R.Conf.Rep. 346, reprinted U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 1352, 1356 1359 113 Cong.Rec. 14093, 14095, 16434 (1967). suggestion fleeting 'delinquents' authorizes inductions 236 237, 302, 509. directive implemented 1631.7. n. 4,

Category: 1