Court Opinion

ID: 9424155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:10:32.775333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:48.479745
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
In Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U. S. 233 (1968), I joined Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissent expressing the view that § 10 (b) (3) was designed to permit judicial review of draft classifications only in connection with criminal prosecutions or habeas corpus proceedings, 393 IJ. S., at 245. But continued adherence to that construction is foreclosed by the Court’s holding in that case that § 10 (b) (3) did not preclude pre-induction judicial review of the case of a registrant entitled to a statutory *470exemption. Therefore, because I too “fail to see any relevant practical or legal differences between exemptions and deferments,” I join the opinion of the Court.