Document: 341 U.S. 41 71 S.Ct. 553 95 L.Ed. 729 MOSERv.UNITED STATES. No. 301. Argued March 17, 1951. Decided April 9, Messrs. Jack Wasserman, Washington, D.C., and Morris E. Vogel, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Stanley M. Silverberg, respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, a native Switzerland, was admitted to citizenship by United States District Court Eastern on July 21, 1949.1 The Appeals reversed,2 holding that petitioner debarred from because he had claimed exemption military service as neutral alien during World War II. Important questions concerning effect treaty statute upon privilege aliens acquire are involved, we granted certiorari.3 2 Petitioner first entered in 1937. After trip Switzerland 1940 Swiss Army, which held commission, returned this country married citizen. He his wife have three children, all born here. 3 Article II Treaty 18504 between provides 'The citizens one two countries, residing or established other, shall be free personal * *.' 4 registered under Selective Service classified III-A, based dependency. When, January 11, 1944, Local Board City reclassified him I-A, available service, sought aid Legation securing deferment accordance with 1850. At time § 3(a) Training Act 1940, amended,5 provided proviso who should thereafter becoming citizen States. however, advised taken steps 'to released unconditionally' Treaty. 5 Upon receiving petitioner's request assistance, Washington requested Department State given an 'unconditional release' liability 'in conformity with' referred System, replied been instructed inform might obtain Revised Form 301 used claiming exemption. Headquarters did so instruct Director City. On February 18, wrote it exempt provisions Art. II, letter continued: 6 'We forwarding you, herewith, copies DSS 301, revised, kindly execute file immediately your Board. This action part is necessary order complete procedure; Board, regulations, amended, will then classify you Class IV-C. 7 'Please note that, through filing not waive right apply American papers. final decision regarding naturalization remain solely competent Naturalization Courts.' 8 Legation's emphasis referring 'Form revised' without significance. pertinent regulations promulgated President6 claim became known 'Application Alien Relief Military Service.' Above signature line form there appeared statement, obvious reference 3(a): 'I understand making application relieved such debar me States.' But shortly after amended content here deal,7 protested inconsistent rights citizens. And hastened assure Government no intention abrogating privileges nationals. Department, conjunction Legation, negotiated agreement omitted waiver quoted above stated simply: hereby relief training land naval forces A footnote revised parts 3(a). 9 It these circumstances signed 26, IV-C has accepted, do we, finding believing thereby precluded citizenship, would it, but elected serve armed forces. 10 Is reason exemption? 11 1850 full force when passed. Standing alone, States, if were all, entitled unqualified Section Act, while recognizing immunity countries our forces,8 imposed condition citizenship. That unquestionably found does mean they inconsistent. Not doubting may modified subsequent act Congress,9 invoke authority here, find congressionally limitation nothing purposes subject matter makes provision respecting contrary, expressly guaranteed each resident other 'shall extend exercise political rights'.10 qualifications limitations acquisition matter11 presume cover. 12 Thus, law, valid exemption; choice 13 already indicated, before exemption, asserted debarment In response claims others, apparent acquiescence, arranged procedure express deleted. information guidance highest could turn, sign led believe lose If otherwise justifiable reliance advice papers sent Legation. 14 We overlook fact contained statutory provision, petitioner, 'you papers.' pause trained lawyer. lawyer speculated possible innuendoes use phrase 'right apply,' opposed obtain.' minor distractions total setting understandably lulled into misconception legal consequences applying 15 Nor thing another, Savorgnan v. 338 491, 70 292, 94 287. Since waiver, what entirely consistent believed claimed. 16 need evaluate basis any estoppel power bind its knowingly intentionally fact, misleading case, never opportunity make intelligent election diametrically courses required strict law. Considering think bar less than elementary fairness. Johnson 318 189, 197, 63 549, 553, 87 704. To hold entrap 17 judgment reversed. 18 DOUGLAS concurs result. 19 BLACK FRANKFURTER agree Court's Moser Questions scope bearing therefore reached considered. 85 F.Supp. 683. 182 F.2d 734. 340 910, 290. Stat. 587, 589. 54 885, 55 845, 50 U.S.C.App. 303(a), U.S.C.A.Appendix, part: 'Except every male person liable States: Provided, if, prior induction forces, made manner prescribed rules President, 32 CFR, 1943 Cum.Supp., 622.43. See 845; 5, supra. Moore International Law Digest 52—53, 61. Clark Allen, 331 503, 508—509, 67 1431, 1434, 1435, 91 1633; Pigeon River Improvement, Slide & Boom Co. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 138, 160, 361, 367, 78 695; Head Money Cases (Edye Robertson), 112 580, 597—599, 247, 253, 254, 28 798. Cf. Cook 288 102, 120, 53 305, 311, 77 641. 588. U.S.Const., I, 8, cl. 4; Macintosh, 283 605, 615, 51 570, 571, 75 1302; Schwimmer, 279 644, 649, 49 448, 449, 73 889; Zartarian Billings, 204 170, 175, 27 182, 183, 428.

Category: 1