Court Opinion

ID: 9455235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:15:22.924496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:30.846654
License: Public Domain

*35VAN DU SEN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority decision holding that plaintiffs Bobo, DeRicco, Marcus, Mat-lack, Ostroff, Pailet, Robertson, Thor-burn, and Wyman, Jr. (formerly classified I-Y, II-A or III-A) are entitled to injunctive relief at this time on this record.
Insofar as it is approved by the majority opinion, the stipulation makes clear that this case is now before the court on appeal from a District Court order (entered after hearing and filing of findings of fact and conclusions of law) denying plaintiffs a permanent injunction and entering a final judgment for defendants.1 The most pertinent findings of the District Court are:
“3. Plaintiffs Bucher and Caldwell had previously been placed in IV-D classifications. Plaintiff Bucher has subsequently been placed back into his IV-D status where he is at present. All other plaintiffs had previously been in deferred categories.
“4. All named plaintiffs turned in their draft cards (Registration certificates or Notices of classification).
“5. All named plaintiffs were reclassified into I-A status for turning in draft cards.
“6. None of the named plaintiffs have been ordered to report for induction.” 2
The notes of testimony taken at the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction held May 17, 1968, have never been transcribed and are not part of the record. The record now before this court presents insufficient facts on which to declare an act of Congress (Section 10(b) (3) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 — 50 U.S.C. App. § 460(b) (3)) ineffective in the cases of the above-named plaintiffs on constitutional grounds. It is entirely consistent with the brief findings of fact of the district court that the plaintiffs were not reclassified solely because they turned in their draft cards; the turning in of the draft cards may have been just one factor (a) in a history of unwillingness to comply with draft regulations found reasonable in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 378, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968), or (b) in a situation where the factors previous to the non-compliance described in finding No. 4 above predominated so slightly in persuading the draft board to grant a discretionary deferment that the balancing of factors justified a denial of the discretionary deferment after consideration of this noneompliance.
I believe the majority misconstrues the nature of Supreme Court precedent in holding that pre-induction review is permissible in this ease because (a) the delinquency regulations are unconstitutional, and (b) they are unauthorized. Intertwined in these two holdings is the crux of the majority decision as applied to the above-named plaintiffs, namely, that § 10(b) (3) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C. App. § 460(b) (3) is invalid insofar as its terms bar judicial review before these registrants are accepted for indue-» tion, even though their previous classifications were based on discretionary deferments.
Prior to 1967, the law on pre-induction review was clear. As Justice Black stated in Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 554, 64 S.Ct. 346, 348-349, 88 L.Ed. 305 (1944):
“Even if there were * * * a constitutional requirement that judicial *36review must be available to test the validity of the decision of the local board, it is certain that Congress was not required to provide for judicial intervention before final acceptance of an individual for national service.”
Following a series of decisions that appeared to weaken this well-settled rule,3 Congress enacted § 10(b) (3), specifically abrogating the right to review a classification before final acceptance for induction.
In Oestereich v. Selective Serv. System Local Bd. No. 11, 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968), the Supreme Court held that § 10(b) (3) could not have been intended to bar review of reclassification of registrants entitled to a “statutory exemption.” The Court noted that Congress had sanctioned classification of registrants as “delinquents,” id. at 236, 89 S.Ct. 414, but held that the “scope of the statutory delinquency concept is not broad enough to sustain a revocation of what Congress has granted as a statutory right, or sufficiently buttressed legislative standards.” Id. at 238-239, 89 S.Ct. at 417. The Court repeated the requirement that the lost deferment must be one of statutory right to preclude application of § 10(b) (3) in Clark v. Gabriel, 393 U.S. 256, 89 S.Ct. 424, 21 L.Ed.2d 418 (1968). In that case, a registrant challenged the failure of his board to classify him as a conscientious objector; the District Court issued a preliminary injunction holding that the “tortuous judicial adventure” dictated by § 10(b) (3), a choice between defending against a criminal prosecution for failing to submit to induction and applying for a writ of habeas corpus following induction, amounted to “no review at all.” Based on the “principles enunciated” in Oester-eich, the Supreme Court reversed:
“In Oestereich the delinquency procedure by which the registrant was reclassified was without statutory basis and in conflict with petitioner’s rights explicitly established by the statute and not dependent upon an act of judgment by the board. Oester-eich, as a divinity student, was by statute unconditionally entitled to exemption. Here, by contrast, there is no doubt of the board’s statutory authority to take action which appellee challenges, and that action inescapably involves a determination of fact and an exercise of judgment.” Id. at 258, 89 S.Ct. at 426. (Emphasis added.) 4
The Court held that there was no constitutional objection to the statutory provision that review of the registrant’s claims be deferred until induction.
The majority correctly points out that lower federal courts are in disagreement as to which deferments “Congress has granted as a statutory right.” Oester-eich, supra, at 238-239, 89 S.Ct. at 417, Under Oestereich the statutory delinquency concept is not broad enough to authorize reclassification of registrants having a IV-D classification (ministers and divinity students). Thus, the defendants concede apparently that Behm and Caldwell are entitled to judicial review, and if they have not yet been reclassified IY-D, to a permanent injunc*37tion.5 In addition, under the rationale of United States v. Worstell, 419 F.2d 762 (No. 17624, 3rd Cir. 11/7/69), Pod-berski is entitled to review of this reclassification from undergraduate II-S to I-A delinquent.6 I also believe that Klinefelter, reclassified from IV-F (permanently unqualified for military service), is entitled to review.7
But until the holding of the majority in this case, the cases were not in dispute as to the reviewability of reclassi-fications affecting discretionary deferments granted pursuant to 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(h) (2).8 There is no question that registrants are not entitled to such deferments as a matter of “statutory right.” 9
*38The majority avoids the clear limitation of Oestereich by holding that any postponement of judicial review following a reclassification pursuant to the delinquency regulations is unconstitutional. The case cited by the majority for its position, which position would appear to be inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent from Falbo v. United States, supra, to this date,10 is Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963). In Mendoza-Martinez two United States citizens had their citizenship revoked automatically under a statute providing for such revocation where the citizen was found to have left the country to evade the draft. The Supreme Court found that the “statute’s primary function is to serve as an additional penalty for a special category of draft evader.” Id. at 169, 83 S.Ct. at 568. Because it was such a punishment, the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the safeguards of procedural due process, including notice, confrontation, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, trial by jury and assistance of counsel. This case is readily distinguishable from the situation here.
In the first place, none of the registrants is deprived of judicial review. If they wish to challenge their reclas-sifications, they may do so, but under Falbo they must first exhaust their administrative remedies, including presenting themselves for induction to see if the Selective Service will in fact induct them. In addition to using the appeals provided for in the Military Selective Service Act, they can challenge this induction in two ways, either by defending a criminal prosecution or by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. Although this procedure does involve certain risks to the registrant if his contention is proven wrong, Congress chose such a method of review precisely for the purpose of avoiding the “litigious interruptions of procedures to provide necessary military manpower,” such as would occur by allowing unlimited pre-induction review. Clark v. Gabriel, supra 393 U.S. at 258, 89 S.Ct. at 426.11
Secondly, the reclassification involved here is not “punishment” as that term was defined by the Court in Mendoza-Martinez. Whatever the motives of the local boards in choosing to enforce the regulation requiring a registrant to have his Registration Certificate and Notice of Classification in his possession at all times, the regulation itself is a valid exercise of the power given the President by Congress to provide for the classification and conscription of manpower for military service. The Supreme Court held in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377-378, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1679, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968):
“The constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. * * * The power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower is ‘beyond question.’ * * * Pursuant to this power, Congress may establish a system of registration for individuals liable for training and service, and may require such individuals within reason to cooperate with the registration system. The issuance of certificates indicating the registration and eligibility of individuals is a legitimate and substantial administrative aid to the functioning of this system. And legislation to insure the continuing availability of issued certificates *39serves a legitímate and substantial purpose in the system’s administration.”
The majority also holds that the delinquency regulations, if not unconstitutional, are unauthorized. However, a category for “delinquents” is explicitly mentioned in the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C.App. § 456 (h) (1).12 This power was explicitly recognized in Oestereich, where the court merely found that Congress could not have intended the delinquency concept to abrogate the right of registrants to deferments mandated by Congress. I note that this is not a case where the regulations enforced require cooperation not “within reason,” United States v. O’Brien, supra, and that it is not a case where the local board attempted to use the delinquency regulations for purposes other than enforcing Selective Service Regulations. See National Student Ass’n v. Hershey, 412 F.2d 1103, 1119 (D.C.Cir. 1969); Wolff v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 16, 372 F.2d 817 (2nd Cir. 1967).
Although there is no finding of the trial court and no indication in the sparse record on appeal that the registrants in this case handed in their draft cards to protest United States policies, even if such were the case their action would not be “speech” as protected by the First Amendment. United States v. O’Brien, supra, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. 1673.13
For the foregoing reasons, I would include in the order remanding this ease to the District Court a direction that the claims of the above-named plaintiffs should be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of such claims on this record.

. The application to dismiss the complaint specifically relied on the contention that the court was deprived of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit by the specific terms of 50 U.S.C.App. § 460(b) (3).

. The balance of the findings of fact were:
“FINDINGS OF FACT
“1. The named plaintiffs are all Selective Service registrants.
“2. Defendants are Selective Service Local Boards in New Jersey and the New Jersey State Director of Selective Service.”
The Conclusions of Law appear at page 3 of the majority opinion.

. The principal decision, apparently, was Wolff v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 16, 372 F.2d 817, 826 (2nd Cir. 1967). In that case, several registrants were reclassified as delinquents for participating in an anti-war demonstration.
The Second Circuit held that exhaustion of administrative remedies, including submission for induction, was not required before judicial review could be had, both because the board’s action was unauthorized and because of the allegation of deprivation of First Amendment freedoms. It is noted that no such deprivation is shown on this record and that several cases cited in the majority decision rely on such deprivation.

. Justice Douglas, the author of the Oestereich opinion, concurred, stating that, in his view, “it takes an extreme case where the Board can be said to flout the law, as it did in Oestereich * * *, to warrant pre-induction review of its actions.” 393 U.S. at 260, 89 S.Ct. at 427. Such a lawless act would be, he suggested, reclassification of a registrant because he made an unpopular speech, essentially the Wolff, supra note 3, situation.

 See Appellee’s Brief at 11, n. 4. The claim of Bucher is moot as it is conceded that he is now classified IV-D.

. Only the undergraduate II-S deferment is mandated by Congress. The graduate II-S deferment is discretionary with the local boards under 50 U.S.C.App. § 456 (h) (2). See Kolden v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 4, 406 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1969). However, Congress has provided that once a school year is begun, the graduate student is entitled to a I-S deferment in order to finish the current school year. See, e. g., Crane v. Hershey, 410 F.2d 966 (1st Cir. 1969); Foley v. Hershey, 409 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1969).

. Although there is no statutory provision requiring the deferment of persons unfit for any military service currently or in time of war or of national emergency, the President, pursuant to his power under 50 U.S.C.App. § 456(h) (2), has provided for such a classification. Executive Order No. 10,984, as amended, Exec.Order No. 11,188, 32 C.F.R. § 1622.44 (1964), provides:
“In Class IV-F shall be placed any registrant who is found under applicable physical, mental, and moral standards to be not qualified for any service in the Armed Forces either currently or in time of war or national emergency declared by Congress.”
Absent further amendment, this Order grants a permanent deferment and, just as Oestereieh found that Congress did not contemplate use of the delinquency concept to remove exemptions granted as a statutory right, I do not believe the President intended use of the delinquency regulations to abrogate that which he has ordered as a mandatory deferment in this situation. Cf. United States v. Worstell, 419 F.2d 762 (No. 17624, 3rd Cir. 11/7/69).

. 50 U.S.C.App. § 456(h) (2) provides:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subsection the President is authorised, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to provide for the deferment from training and service in the Armed Forces of any or all categories of persons whose employment in industry, agriculture, or other occupations or employment, or whose continued service in an Office * * ♦ under the United States or any State, territory, or possession, or the District of Columbia, or whose activity in graduate study, research, or medical, dental, veterinary, optometric, osteopathic, scientific, pharmaceutical, chiropractic, chiropodial, or other endeavors is found to be necessary to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest: Provided, That no person within any such category shall be deferred except upon the basis of his individual status * * *. The President is also authorised * * * to provide deferment from training and service in the Armed Forces (1) of any or all categories of persons in a status with respect to persons * * * dependent upon them which renders their deferment advisable, and (2) of any or all categories of those persons found to be physically, mentally, or morally deficient or defective * * * [T]he President is also authorised * * * to provide for the deferment * * * of any or all categories of persons who have children, or wives and children, with whom they maintain a bona fide family relationship in their homes. No deferment [in such a case] shall be made in the case of any individual except upon the basis of the status of such individual. The President may * * * recommend criteria for the classification of persons subject to induction * * *, and to the extent that such action is determined by the President to be consistent with the national interest, recommend that such criteria be administered uniformly throughout the United States whenever practicable * * (Emphasis added.)

. All plaintiffs, other than Belim, Caldwell, Bucher, Podbereski, and Klinefelter, possessed deferments that, under the *38regulations promulgated by the President pursuant to 50 U.S.O.App. § 456(b) (2), were discretionary with the local boards.

. For example, in Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 394, 74 S.Ct. 152, 156, 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953), the Supreme Court of the United States said:
“The Universal Military Training and Service Act does not permit direct judicial review of selective service classification orders.

. There is no showing in this record that any of the plaintiffs made any attempt to challenge their reclassifications by administrative appeal, whereas in cases such as Oestereich and Gabriel administrative appeals had been exhausted by the plaintiffs.

. Even in the absence of such a provision, an administrative agency lias implicit authority to issue reasonable regulations to assist in its administration of its congressional mandate.

. Chief Judge Bazelon noted in National Student Ass’n v. Hershey, 412 F.2d 1103, 1117 (D.C.Cir. 1969):
“While O’Brien was not specifically concerned with the possession regulation, the Court’s rationale plainly protects the First Amendment flanks of that regulation as well. Since Local Board Memorandum No. 85 [the Hershey Directive] thus does not chill protected, conduct, the asserted predicate for justiciability disappears.”