Document: 415 U.S. 391 94 S.Ct. 1177 39 L.Ed.2d 412 Henry HERNANDEZ et al., Petitioners,v.VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION al. No. 72—700. Argued Dec. 11, 1973. Decided March 4, 1974. Syllabus Petitioners, who were denied educational benefits under the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 because, as conscientious objectors exempt from military service performed alternative civilian service, they ineligible for such benefits, brought actions challenging constitutionality, on First and Fifth Amendment grounds, provisions making them ineligible. The District Court dismissed grounds that jurisdiction was barred by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) petitioners' constitutional claims insubstantial without merit. Appeals affirmed basis jurisdictional bar. Held: Section does not bar judicial consideration challenges to veterans' legislation. Johnson v. Robison, 361, 1160, 389. P. 393. 467 F.2d 479, vacated remanded. Lawrence L. Curtice, San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation, Francisco, Cal., Jack R. Petranker, pro hac vice, special leave Court, petitioners. Gerald Norton, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 like appellee his class in 389, are Class I O who, upon completion pursuant 6(j) Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C.App. 456(j), governing regulations System, 32 CFR, Part 1660, applied provided 1966. Administration application reasons which Robison's request denied, i.e., because a I—O objector has qualify 1652(a)(1) 'veteran . served active duty' (defined 101(21) 'full time duty Armed Forces'), is therefore an 'eligible veteran' entitled 1661(a) 2 Alleging those sections discriminate against violation Amendment, infringe Religion Clauses petitioners filed two seeking declaratory, injunctive, mandamus relief requesting convening three-judge district court. consolidated cases granted Government's motion dismiss 'plaintiffs' requests affirmative within this due mandate (and) plaintiffs' challenge based alleged violations Amendments United States Constitution (sic) merit.' 339 F.Supp. 913, 916 (ND Cal.1972). Notwithstanding Court's dismissal ground insubstantiality, Appeals, we read court's opinion, construed order solely 211(a), ground. 479 (1972). We certiorari set case oral argument with 411 981, 93 2267, 36 957 (1973). 3 have held today Robison Accordingly, judgment remanded further proceedings consistent our Robison. 4 It so ordered. 5 Judgment 6 DOUGLAS concurs result stated dissenting U.S., at 386, S.Ct., 1175.

Category: 1