Document: 395 U.S. 683 89 S.Ct. 1876 23 L.Ed.2d 631 Captain Dale E. NOYD, Petitioner,v.Major General Charles R. BOND, Jr., et al. No. 830. Argued April 24, 1969. Decided June 16, Marvin M. Karpatkin, New York City, for petitioner. James van Springer, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner is a career officer in Air Force who has come to believe that this country's participation Vietnamese conflict unjust and immoral. Having decided he would do nothing further Nation's military effort Southeast Asia, Noyd refused obey an order, issued December 5, 1967, requiring him teach one junior officers at Cannon Base, Mexico, fly airplane.1 2 In response, Major Bond, Commander Twelfth Force, convened general court-martial Base. On March 8, 1968, found guilty wilfully disobeying lawful order; on following day petitioner was sentenced year's confinement hard labor, forfeiture all pay allowances, dismissal from Force. As soon as announced its sentence, ordered confined his quarters. The court-martial's judgment then forwarded Bond review required by 10 U.S.C. § 864, May 10, approved ordering that: 'Pending completion appellate review, accused will be United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.' At point, petitioner's attorneys undertook two courses action. hand, they appealed merits conviction Board Review, which tribunal Congress established oversee administration criminal justice branch Armed Forces. other sought habeas corpus relief civilian courts, arguing Uniform Code Military released pending outcome appeal. 3 present time, appeal still higher reaches court system. While Review now affirmed court-martial, Court Appeals, highest tribunal, agreed Noyd's case. does not suggest we may properly interfere with orderly process considering juncture. Rather, are only asked vindicate asserted right remain free while validity being litigated courts. I. 4 invoke assistance courts precipitated Bond's order transferring disciplinary barracks Leavenworth. Shortly after issued, before it carried out, writ District both Base proposed transfer Leavenworth were violation provisions Justice. First, contended constituted attempt 'execute' sentence Article 71(c) Code, provides: 5 'No includes, unsuspended, dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, year more, executed until board and, cases reviewed it, Appeals.' 871(c). (Emphasis supplied.) 6 Second, argued 13 Code2 authorized convicted serviceman restraint necessary prevent serviceman's flight jurisdiction. Since no such finding been made case, should require complete releas. 7 Government, addition opposing claims merits, exhaust remedies seeking Court, however, apply exhaustion principle system did provide adequate remedy could test confinement, appeal, expedited manner. Turning Judge granted part requested. legality find incarceration constitute 'execution' 71(c), so declared invalid.3 8 Both sides Appeals Tenth Circuit, reversed Court's grant partial relief. Relying decision Gusik v. Schilder, 340 128, 71 149, 95 L.Ed. 146 (1950), unanimous panel held any form had first challenged tribunals within emphasized 'the recently possesses power issue writ' if demonstrate illegally restrained perceive justification failure seek court's assistance. 402 F.2d 441, 442—443. We certiorari consider propriety application rule Schilder circumstances 393 1048, 692, 21 690 (1969). II. 9 decision, recognized since scheduled expire 26, 1968,4 might well custody have opportunity pass upon avoid possibility mootness, promptly requested stay mandate release petition certiorari. 6, mandate, thereby keeping effect, but applied White, Circuit Tet h temporary action petition. When denied 18, second motion same tenor Douglas day. Noting recess meet again January 1969, 'petitioner * placed non-incarcerated status' full issues raised considered 478, 554. Pursuant Douglas' Christmas Eve, days expire.5 11 Despite release, Government suggests case become moot. It under applicable law, judicial 'non-incarcerated insufficient toll continued run expired own force 26. bases claim reading 57(b) Justice: 12 'Any period included begins date adjudged periods during suspended shall excluded computing service term confinement.' 857(b). Citing interpretive regulations, understands statute establish '(t)he mark beginning whether Apprehension Confinement: Sentences Confinement, AR 633—30; AFR 125 30. 14 disagree Government's understanding rule, relies expressly provides tolled 'suspended' probation. argues confirmance obvious purpose preserve status quo consideration petition, understood meaning statutory exception rule. emphasizes 'suspend' contends instance. 15 unnecessary decide question. For even satisfy exception, hold sufficient interrupt running sentence. Like intended stated inexorably situations fall 'suspension sentence' exception: 16 'Congress mention contingencies credited time served. Common sense escaped interrupted make up end period.' Bryant, U.S.C.M.A. 133, 137, 30 C.M.R. 137 (1961). 17 think equally clear give litigious bonus when obtains impose. sere protect whom wishes run. If commanding simply releases without 'suspending' demand given hearing reincarcerated. contrast, demands once 'suspended,' reinstated unless hearing, represented counsel determine violated conditions 872(a). 57(b), then, represents Congress' though man temporarily set liberty, credit sure freedom curtailed later plenary hearing. Obviously, statute's served where liberty limited argument judiciary. 18 recognition fact, Manual Courts-Martial has, promulgation 1951, obtained like one. Manual, law 'contrary inconsistent with' enacted, 836(a), 19 'A continuous expires, certain exceptions. These exceptions include following: 20 'Periods person undergoing absent authority erroneously through misrepresentation fraud prisoner, competent *.' 97(c), Courts-Martial, (1951). Thus, requires receive avoided granting follows fortiori principles well. litigation, convinced relieved confinement. showing chances success sufficiently great warrant interlocutory Surely, entitled more favorable sentencing treatment than least legally sound whose arguments upheld 22 operated hence us III. turn making petitions prisoners entertained federal available invoked vain. Douglas, explained some important reasons respect integrity established: 24 'An analogy challenging jurisdiction state court. procedure remedy, exhausted, interfere. policy underlying tha pertinent collateral attack judgments rendered employed rectify alleged error correct, interference wholly needless. police errors occasion. is, friction between saved. Such suspension corpus. merely deferment resort corrective procedures shown futile.' Id., 131—132, 151—152. 25 true, course, federalism enlighten relevant problem us. Nevertheless considerations substantial degree deference tribunals. reviewing decisions, must accommodate individual rights social context far removed those encounter ordinary federal. doing so, interpret legal tradition radically different common civil 26 these Congress, exercise 'make Rules Regulation land naval Forces,'6 never supervise military. Second World War, became need assure direct over justice, deliberately chose confide specialized disinterested judges gain fully developed distinctive problems traditions 27 Almost Federal sitting would, appropriate cases, Levy Resor, 135, 37 399 (1967).7 Petitioner, Appeals. Nevertheless, intervene precipitately into life guidance confided primary responsibility supervision country abroad. 28 called prematurely proceeding itself. Instead, exercising said there less ancillary matters sort. cannot agree. All supporting supra, here. claim, intervention. Needless result throughout obliged comparable decisions commanders Moreover, reach extremely technical analogs jurisprudence, explored There seems little reason blaze trail unfamiliar ground stands ready arguments.8 29 contends, expected effective way. His principal based simple fact sits exclusively D.C. jurisdiction, somehow obtain lawyer willing able conduct lawsuit Capital. practical difficulty makes This too sweeping acceptable. Individuals crime often distant place incarcerated. alone permit district demanding prisoner presently offered State's Similarly, enough, standing alone, circumvent 31 argues, distance special significance one, speed essential effective. But concedes theC ourt thus acted speedily confronted emergency writ,9 responded rapidly assistance.10 Nor ever suggested impossible requisite dispatch. 32 servicemen conceivably obtaining move quickly Washington. inundated applications writs position when, if, arise. unusual, announce rules proper act facilitate attempted show prompt unavailable excused.11 33 Accordingly, affirmed. light questions petitioner, plain bad faith failed invoking Consequently, continue effect our manadate issues, See 1651(a); cf. Phillips States, 312 246, 254, 61 480, 484, 85 800 (Mr. Frankfurter). true yet serve surrender short requires. 34 ordered. 35 BLACK concurs n result. 36 WHITE, dissenting. determination subjected illegal restraints courtmartial begun imposed, otherwise interrupted. Hence filed here, most conviction, duration sentence—two confinement—he subject imposed him. Surely picayune here event, either conjunction brought question place; token, desired equivalent, matter also presented rather I dismiss improvidently granted. Before incident took place, assign duties consistent beliefs Colorado because court-martialed refusing orders exhausted McNamara, 267 F.Supp. 701 (D.C., 1967). affirmed, 378 538, certiorari, 389 U.. 1022, 88 593, 667 (1967). Fifth Circuits have, subsequently doctrine necessarily await military's convene Hammond Lenfest, 398 705 (C.A.2d Cir. 1968); re Kelly, 401 211 (C.A.5th 1968). Cf. Brown 387 150 (C.A.3d resolve among circuits narrow provision reads: 'Art. 13. Punishment prohibited trial. 'Subject section 857 title (Article 57 Code), person, trial trial, punishment penalty arrest charges against him, nor rigorous insure presence, minor infractions discipline.' 813. After lawfully transferred significantly increased permitted see family twice each week forbidden leave quarters except narrowly purposes. Letter Regarding Arrest Quarters, Col. George Doerr, Appendix 32—34. one-year began 9, awarded credits good behavior, permitting nine one-half months. 20, '(s)tay heretofore issuance Court.' 692. Constitution Art. I, cl. 14. renew occasion advanced Brief Support Motion Strike Dismiss Petition, Frischholz, Docket 14,270 (1965), lacks writs. Frischholz 150, 306 (1966), rejected argument, holding Writs Act, 1651(a), 'writs aid (its) jurisdictions.' Act applies terms 'courts Congress,' Revisers 1948 noted revised extends explicit powers implied creation courts,' can doubt ultimately A qus tion arise governing statutes. Bevilacqua, 39 (1968). ex rel. Toth Quarles, 350 11, 76 1, 100 (1955); Reid Covert, 354 77 1222, 1148 (1957); McElroy Guagliardo, 361 281, 80 305, 282 (1960), justify cited barred assertion various classes civilians connected military, vindicated complainants' remedies. expertise extended constitutional type presented. appeared especially unfair complainants denying try them all. Neither factors 1967. oral July 7, indicate subsequent ruled five submission. how long wait allegedly afforded cites asserts prior Board's merits; referred unequivocally grants authority. absence Boards assert power, exist. Union Pacific Co. Weld County, 247 282, 38 510, 62 1110 (1918); Township Hillsborough Cromwell, 326 620, 66 445, 90 358 (1946).

Category: 8