Jacobrown v. United States
764 F. Supp. 2d 221
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff, a Quaker, alleges RFRA violations based on MSSA registration without a mechanism to assert conscientious objector status or a record thereof.
- Defendants contend plaintiff lacks standing because Selective Service provides procedures to assert and record conscientious objector status.
- Plaintiff asserts current procedures do not satisfy his religious requirements of an official assertion or official record.
- Court explains MSSA requires men 18-26 to register and outlines optional paths (card, online, mailback) and CO classifications after induction.
- Plaintiff had previously indicated to Selective Service that he cannot register due to CO beliefs; litigation follows after unsuccessful resolution.
- Court grants motion to dismiss for lack of standing, but dismisses without prejudice to allow a new complaint correcting deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does plaintiff have standing to challenge MSSA registration under RFRA? | Jacobrown claims the current system burdens his religious practice and that he cannot register without an official CO status mechanism or record. | Selective Service already provides mechanisms and records; plaintiff has no concrete injury. | Plaintiff lacks standing; dismissal granted. |
| Does the Selective Service offer the CO assertion/record mechanism plaintiff seeks? | Current practice does not satisfy 'official' assertion or recordkeeping for CO status. | An annotation on the registration card and microfiche records constitute official CO records. | Yes, mechanism and records exist; plaintiff lacks injury. |
| Is dismissal appropriate without prejudice to allow amendment? | Complaint should not be dismissed if deficiencies can be corrected to plead standing. | Dismissal without prejudice is proper to permit repleading. | Dismissal without prejudice with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1981) (military draft registration upheld; context for registration schemes)
- United States v. Schmucker, 815 F.2d 413 (6th Cir. 1987) (classification claims must be determined at time of induction)
- United States Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1989) (agency records concept and FOIA records; official records)
- Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (standing and jurisdiction principles in RFRA context)
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing requires concrete injury and traceability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three-part standing test (injury, causation, redressability))
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (standing requirements and jurisdictional constraints)