*1 UNITED STATES. ESTEP v.
NO. 292. February 4, 1946.
Argued 1945. Decided November *2 Covington argued the for Hayden petitioners. C. cause him on the C. Powell and Curran With brief were Grover Cooley. E. Shapiro for the United
Irving argued 8. cause him on the briefs were Solicitor General With States. Cummings, J. and Robert S. Erdahl. Walter McGrath (cid:127) Jr., the brief No. 292. also was on Douglas opinion Me: delivered the Justice Court. held
In Falbo United 320 U. S. we 11 of the Selective prosecution in a criminal under (54 894, 50 Training and Service Act of 1940 Stat. U. S. C. on the 311) registrant ground could not defend App. § classified was to a wrongfully that he was entitled statutory exemption, where the offense was a failure for forces or work report induction into the armed for judicial provision We found no importance.1 national (g) provides “be-assigned that a shall Act 1Sec. importance if is con work of national under civilian direction” he scientiously opposed to induction into armed services even for Regulations, noncombatant 652.1- service." See Selective Service 652.14, 653.1-653.16. registrant’s prior classification to the time of a review steps process taken all the the selective when he had by the armed finally accepted had been services. in these cases is whether there question prosecution classification 11§ review of his induction, reported finally where he but accepted, to induction. refused to submit classified him I-A, local board i. Estep’s e., as avail- (d) military service.2 Sec. 5 exempts able for Act (but training registration) and service not from from duly religion ordained ministers of . . .” “Regular regulations category those Under the are classified Estep, a member of Witnesses, as IV-D.3 Jehovah’s entitled claimed that he was to that classification. The against him. local board ruled He took his case to the him board which classified as I-A.4 appeal He then asked National Directors the State and of Selective Service to *3 President for him.5 appeal request to the His was re- thereupon board fused. The local ordered him report to reported for induction. He at the time place and indi- accepted by cated. He was the Navy. But he refused inducted, claiming to be that he was exempt from service because he was an ordained minister of gospel.
2 Regulations, Selective Service 622.11. 3 Id., 622.44. 4 By (a) (2) the Act the President was authorized to es § tablish “civilian boards and agencies, such other civilian including appeal agencies appeal, may boards and necessary carry be to out . provisions provisions Act.” of this The governing appeals to the appeal are boards of contained in regulations. 627.1-627.61 of the provides special appeal procedure The Act for conscientious ob jectors. 5(g). See § may Either appeal of them take any such an at time when he “deems it to be in the necessary national interest or to injus avoid an . . tice .” Selective Service Regulations, 628.1. A appeal to the President when he is provided classified as I-A one or more appeal of the board of dissented from such classification. Id., Estep’s 628.2. In appeal case the board of was unanimous classifying him in I-A. indicted
He was
of the Act
wilfully
fail-
ing
refusing
and
to submit
to
sought
induction.6 He
ground
defend on the
that as a Jehovah’s Witness he was
religion
a minister of
and that he had been improperly
denied exemption from service, because the classifying
agencies acted
arbitrarily
capriciously
refusing to
classify him as IV-D. He also claimed
right
that his
appeal
effective
had been denied because the local
beard unlawfully withheld certain relevant documents
appeal
from the
improper
board and included
material
appeal.
rejected
record on
The district court
these
defenses and did not permit
the introduction of evidence
Estep’s
to sustain
contention.
him
jury found
guilty
imprisonment
he was sentenced to
for a term of five
years.
appeal
On
the circuit
appeals
court of
affirmed,
on a divided vote.
Smith, Estep, like is a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses. exemption He claimed from all service the ground on minister religion. he was a His placed local board him I-A, military Class as available for service. His classi- was affirmed by appeal fication board. On appeal again the President his classification was affirmed. The local board then ordered him report for induction. He to the reported station, induction accepted by the refused military, inducted, but claiming he was exempt from service because he was a minister. He was his will and against inducted later was held for trial general court-martial disobedience of military orders. petition for writ corpus habeas He filed a which was *4 Richart, denied. Smith v. 53 F. 582. Supp. While his “any provides: person 11 far 6Sec. so as material here who . . . knowingly neglect perform any duty required shall fail or to of him Act, regulations or in the execution of this or rules or made Act; shall, pursuant upon to . . . conviction in the district court this jurisdiction having thereof, punished by of the United States be im years than prisonment for not more five or a fine of not more than imprisonment by such fine and . $10,000, or both . .” 118 pending, Truesdell, we decided
appeal Billings was 321 thereupon 542. He was released from military U. cus- S. 11 indicted for violation of of the At aiid tody § Act. him sought given by he to attack classification his trial among other board, claiming, things, that it acted fact, him any against foundation discriminated without Witness, he was a Jehovah’s and denied him because proof of his claim that right make’ full he was a minis- The.court religion. ruled that no such ter of defense guilty by Smith was found jury be tendered. could three and years one-half was imposed. a sentence and conviction was affirmed judgment appeal. on The 2d 288. F. petitions for here on writs of
The cases are certiorari importance granted because of the ques- which we presented. tion the administration of the
Congress entrusted Selective agencies, civilian System military. to the Service President to create and establish authorized a Se- and System to establish civilian local lective Service it. appeal (a) (2). § boards to administer boards designed System “.provide Service The Selective registrants persons and of classification who vol- for the this Act on induction under the basis of avail- unteer training service . . .” Id. ability for restricted classes for certain deferment7 or ex- specified service, including the latter, from as we emption have duly religion ordained ministers of “Regular or . . .” said, provide President was authorized to for the 5. The § regulations.8 classes rules and of other deferment public (1) specified classes of officials (c) were de 7Thus §5 holding training their offices. from and service while ferred regulations placed in classifications those deferred whose em agriculture, occupations industry, other or or whose ac ployment necessary the maintenance tivity to be of the national was found persons interest; dependent had' health, safety, or those who on physically, mentally, morally support; found them for those Regulations 622.21, See Selective Service deficient or defective. 622.61, 622.25-1, 622.32, 622.62.
119 (e). And the local regulations boards “under rules and prescribed by granted the President” “power were within respective jurisdictions their determine, to hear and subject right appeal appeal to the herein boards authorized, questions all or respect claims with to inclu- for, sion exemption or from, training or deferment and service under this juris- Act of all within individuals diction of such (a) (2). local boards.” 10 The Act § provision makes judicial no terms for review of the ac- tions of the local appeal boards or the boards. For 10§ (a) (2) states the “decisions of such local boards shall except be final where an appeal is authorized in accordance regulations such with rules and as the President may 9 prescribe.” By Congress the terms of the Act enlisted the aid of the federal courts for enforcement purposes. Sec. criminal wilful perform makes failure any duty Act required of a regula- or rules or An it. order report tions made under for induction is duty it includes the duty; such a to submit to induc- Truesdell, supra, p. Billings tion. Sec. confers jurisdiction on the district courts to try charged one with But 11 is silent when such offense. it comes to the interposed. if be defenses, any, may which with a which provision we start statute makes Thus no review of the actions of the local judicial boards or the alone, course, That agencies. appeal decisive. (2) provides: (a) part relevant here “Such §10 regulations President, prescribed boards, under rules and shall jurisdictions respective determine, to hear and power have within their subject right appeal authorized, appeal to the boards herein to the exemption respect for, questions claims with to inclusion or or all from, training individuals and service under this Act of all deferment jurisdiction of such within the of such local boards. The decisions except appeal shall be final where an is authorized local boards regulations such rules accordance with President prescribe.” Congress the silence of as to
For review not necessarily power construed as a denial of the grant federal courts to relief general exercise of the jurisdiction upon has conferred them. *6 McAnnulty, Healing 94; American School v. 187 U. S. Gegiow Uhl, Wickard, v. 239 U. Stark S. v. 321 U. S. 288. may required by Judicial review indeed be the Con Ng Fung White, stitution. Ho v. 259 Apart U. S. 276. from requirements, constitutional question whether judicial will be provided where review is silent depends setting on whole of the particular statute and regulation the scheme of adopted. Switchmen’s Board, Union v. Mediation 320 U. 297, S. 301. And ex cept when requires the Constitution it, review of administrative granted action be or withheld as Con gress chooses. authority of the local boards whose orders are the
basis of these prosecutions criminal is circumscribed both by the Act and the regulations. Their authority to questions hear and determine all of deferment or exemp- in is, tion as stated 10 (a) (2), limited § to action “within respective jurisdictions.” their It orders “within respective jurisdictions” their that are made final. seem, therefore, if a Pennsylvania board or- dered a citizen and resident Oregon to report for induc- tion, the defense that it beyond acted jurisdiction its could in interposed prosecution 11. That § case comparable would be Tung United 142 F. 2d 919, where the local board ordered registrant report for induction without allowing him the appeal to which he was entitled under the regulations. Since 10 (a) (2) § makes the decisions of the local boards final “except where appeal is authorized” under the regulations, the defer.se was allowed in the criminal trial. (cid:127)
Any other case where a local board acts so contrary to granted its authority as to exceed jurisdiction10 its does ip See cases cited note infra. (a) (2) footing. By not stand on different the local § determining claims for deferment boards, hearing regulations pre- or act “under rules and exemption, must limit, rules scribed . . .” Those as well President regulations those define, jurisdiction. their One of for- bids from classification basing the local boards their of a him against on a discrimination “for or because race, color, of his his creed, membership or because of or activity labor, political, religious, organi- or other any Another provides, zation.” 623.1. accordance with (c) (1) Act, mandate contained for the deferment governors States and members of Con- gress while hold their offices.11 622.42. they Another provides reopen local board “shall and consider registrant” anew the classification of a on the written request of Director Director the State or the and upon re- *7 ceipt immediately of the “shall request any cancel” order report for induction or for work national importance. of If 626.2-1. a local board ordered member Congress of report induction, for or if it registrant classified a as military available for he service because was Jew, or a German, Negro, or a it would act defiance of the law. If a local board refused reopen on the written request registrants of State Director a classification and re- fused to cancel its order report induction, for it would acting be regulations. the teeth of the In all such cases its jurisdiction. action would be lawless beyond its
We 11 cannot read § requiring courts to inflict punishment registrants on violating whatever orders might local boards issue. We cannot believe that that intended criminal sanctions were to be applied to issued by orders local boards no matter how flagrantly they violated the regulations rules and which jurisdiction.- with, define their We dealing are here placed “In Class IV-B shall be 11 622.42provides, any registrant” specified (Italics who holds added.) offices. A who liberty. violates personal
question customarily felony.12 A suffers commits a felon the Act (cid:127) rights.13 11, being silent on the substantial Sec. the loss of available defenses doubt. matter, question leaves the against resolve those doubts the ac- loath to But we are infer that readily Congress departed cannot We cused. fair concepts of a trial when the traditional far from so local boards “final” pro- as to made the actions jail go country of this should for not a citizen vide an administrative agency. order of an unlawful obeying Congress reduced criminal believe that loath to We are so barren of the cus- proceedings Act to under trials designed law has for the which the safeguards tomary making The provision the accused. protection means to Con- “final” us that the local boards decisions action give administrative under this not to chose gress judicial review which.obtains customary scope Act the It means that the courts are not to statutes. other whether the classification to determine the evidence weigh justified. The decisions boards the local made regulations conformity with the made boards may ques- be though they erroneous. even final are board is of the local reached if jurisdiction tion of gave the classification which it in fact for basis nois there punished by imprisonment death or offenses “All exceeding year shall be deemed felonies.” Criminal one a term 541. 335,18 S. C. U. Code § § provides a sentence of of the Penal Code California: rights suspends all civil and forfeits life for less than imprisonment *8 during trusts, authority, power or the private public offices and all imprisonment. Law. provision see 510 of the Penal similar York: For a
New § any person Ann. renders sentenced Rev. Missouri: § 4561 Stat. any incompetent crime felony for convicted of a penitentiary or holding voting or him from juror, disqualifies and forever serve as a office, unless pardoned.
123 States, 135 F. 2d v. United registrant.14 See Goff 610, 612. States, preclude not such supra, does
Falbo United v. In case the de the Falbo cases. present in the defense he board before challenged order of his local fendant Here these remedies. exhausted his administrative had. remedies had their administrative registrants pursued Sub All had been done which could done. the end. of the orders induction would be satisfaction mission to relief from further obtain boards, step the local not a them.15 de permit the accused to 11 were not construed to
§If its beyond acted that his board ground on the fend remedy follow. The curious result would jurisdiction, a person extends to a where a “is corpus habeas case . violation of the Constitution of a law . . custody R. S. States . . .” 28 U. C. 453. § United S. § corpus has that habeas only It been assumed available 14 scope judicial inquiry deportation That is tbe cases where deportation “final.” Chin Yow v. made orders of has Fung States, 8; Ng White, supra; Ho Mahler United 208 U. S. v. v. Vajtauer Eby, Immigra U. S. ex rel. v. Commissioner 264 S. U. 103; Bridges Wixon, tion, 273 S. v. 326 135. U. U. S. That also inquiry when a after induction release scope of seeks corpus. Cain, habeas See United military by States 144 from the v. 2dF. 944. 15 runs conclusion counter that our to an unbroken line of is said registrant may challenge not holding his in a classification cases 11. most prosecution under But of those their facts in cases on Falbo case. presented only In issue a few of volved presented necessary ques here for decision. The them was issue Pitt, 169, 173 (C. in United States v. F. 2d tion 144 C. A. was reserved cases, question 1944). following necessary 3d, was for de In the available: Fletcher defense cision, was held that and it (C. States, 1942); United States 5th, 129 F. A. v. v. United 2d 262 C. (C. Rinko, States, 7th, 1945); Gibson United F. 2d C. A. 8th, 1945); Koch (C. v. United A. F. 2d 762 F. 2d 751 C. (C.C. 1945). 4th, A. *9 124 registrant been
after a
has
inducted into the armed servi
But if we
registrant
ces.16
now hold that a
could not de
ground
his
on
fend at
trial
the
that the local board had no
jurisdiction in
premises,
the
it
seem
would
way
the
him
open
would then
challenge
to
to
jurisdiction
the
the local
after
by
board
conviction
corpus,17
habeas
16
811;
Grieme,
See United
v.
States
128 F. 2d
United States v.
Kauten,
703;
Mroz,
133
221;
F. 2d
United States v.
136 F. 2d
Biron
Collins,
Fujii
758;
States,
298;
v.
145F. 2d
v. United
148 F. 2d
Gibson
Clarke,
v. United
Reversed. Mr. Justice took no part the consideration Jackson of these decision cases. Murphy, Mr. Justice concurring.
To sustain convictions of the petitioners two require these cases would adherence to proposition person may that a be criminally punished without ever being accorded the opportunity to prove prosecu- that the upon tion is based an invalid administrative That order. proposition is a to which I cannot subscribe. It violates the most elementary and fundamental concepts of due process of law. It condemns a man without a hearing full and a consideration all alleged his defenses. To sanc- steps tional in the procedure selective service remained taken. corpus Denial habeas by analogy followed to the familiar situations where other procedures corrective might had been available which complained have afforded relief from the orders of. Bowen See Johnston, 19; parte Williams, U. S. Ex parte 317 U. S. Ex Hawk, 321 U. S. present 114. But registrants, cases the as we said, pursued have had their administrative remedies to the end. (cid:127) upon an indelible “blot place is to proposition tion such civilization,” McVeigh v. United jurisprudence our States, justified by which cannot be 259, 267, 11 Wall. exigencies. or wartime any appeal patriotism petitioners condemned the courts below two report orders to for induction failing obey prison previously which had found them services, into the armed deny they Petitioners do that dis- fit. physically claim, however, there They orders. do obeyed these process due the is- singular procedural lack of awas were the induction orders and that the orders suance must be to be invalid —claims that assumed therefore the cases before us. But courts purposes true v. United U. below, relying upon Falbo S. raising view, such claims. Under them from forbade had never had a petitioners prior that the irrelevant *11 a will never have future chance to test and opportunity claims, that if likewise immaterial claims; it is these might completely liability. absolve them from proved, stigma criminality and attach to penalties Thus disobeys an induction order which wilfully who one or constitutionally unauthorized statute or invalid^ mistake, or solely or issued issued regulation, and The mere statement prejudice. of such result of bias it. enough to condemn result is for depriving thus petitioners advanced The reasons due law liberty process without unmeri- are their torious. designed so
First. It is said Selective preclude Act of as to Training Service courts an inquiring validity into the induction order dur- from for prosecution § the course of a a wilful fail- ing if But that is obey true, to such an order. the Act ure respect. person Before bemay this unconstitutional violating process administrative order due punished requires authority that the order be within lawof in such be issued not that it agency and the administrative rights. his constitutional person way deprive as to clear, has a case try such a A to having jurisdiction court con matters so into these inquire duty inherent to destroyed. Con rights impaired stitutional are duty or negative this gress any authority lacks without jurisdiction to exercise criminal command a court rights. individual other regard of law or process to due illegal., administrative To hold otherwise is to substitute Court As this safeguards. constitutional discretion for no warrant system there is said, “Under our previously has court competent of a judicial power for the view that arrangement de legislative by any can be circumscribed beyond going action signed give effect to administrative Joseph Stock St. authority.” the limits of constitutional States, 38, prin U. 52. This Yards Co. v. United S. past in the many times ciple applied has been Ben Valley Co. v. corporations. Ohio Water benefit of Creek Borough, 287, 289; Dayton-Goose Avon 253 U. S. Re 456, 486; Panama R. Co. v. United 263 U. S. Atlantic 388, 432; Prentis v. fining Ryan, 293 U. S. Co. Co., Coast Line 211 U. I assume that an individual S. 210. respect. is entitled to no less this Act so as to reach
But the need not be construed Nothing result. in the com- unconstitutional statute eyes their or to mands courts to shut Constitution deny hearing performing when their func- a full and fair unwilling tions under we should be imply such *12 prohibition. judicial power properly a Once the authority unquestioned § invoked under court has a under the Constitution and the Judicial to accord Code process alleged a defendant due of law and to into inquire deprivations rights despite of constitutional the absence any specific of A authority under the Act to that effect. contrary certainly result is not dictated the fact that Act the makes “final,” subject local board decisions to the merely This deter- provisions. appeal administrative finality, leaving administrative to the point mines the of duty judging and historical of the courts the ultimate “final” validity they of administrative orders which the upon are called enforce with criminal least sanctions, at judicial.review no other method of is previously where available.
A construction Act so as to process insure due of protection law and of constitutional liberties is not an to the Act. is simply recognized amendment a use of interpretative process just to achieve a and consti- coupled result, tutional with a refusal to ascribe' Con- gress an unstated intention to cause deprivations due process. urged It is purpose
Second. and'scheme of the legislative program necessitate the foreclosure of a full hearing criminal proceeding urgent 11. The mobilizing the'manpower need of of the nation for emer- gency purposes consequences delay dire in that process are premise argued From this emphasized. “litigious interruption” that no process the selective can judicial be tolerated and that inquiry into validity during an induction order the course of a criminal proceed- ing prime example “litigious is a interruption.”
This argument, pressed was urgently so and suc- cessfully case, ignores Falbo conveniently the reali- ties of situation. The selective process, in relation to petitioners, finally and completely interrupted at the time when they disobeyed the induction orders and subjected possible themselves to criminal liability. Any subsequent review the induction orders could possible no upon have effect the continuance of the selec- process tive and could bear no earmarks of a in- “litigious terruption.” at time petitioners’ Thus trials courts were confronted accomplished with interruptions rather than with theory. A at point decision *13 grant petitioners hearings full and their protect to consti- rights recognition simply tutional would be a of the fact protects the petitioners Constitution the whenever liberty stake, may their have been their is at whatever in the disobeying motives orders. alleged, course, hearing
It is that to a full in allow criminal proceeding under this Act would be to extend an open disobey invitation all inductees to to their induction and litigate orders the the orders in validity of the subse- quent trials. This at best a excuse poor stripping petitioners rights of their to process due law. More- over, degree judicial the to which review at this stage encourage disobedience of induction orders lies conjecture realm of way and cannot be demonstrated one or other by proof. But sense common would indicate the number willing undergo of those risk to punishment criminal order to the validity test their orders, induction with attendant proof, difficulties of would be extremely process small. Adherence due unlikely impede law criminal trials the war effort unduly. perchance opposite And should be there true are undoubtedly legislative combating means of problem. suggestion
Third. The further is made that judicial review of induction orders available is means of habeas corpus proceedings in- brought subsequent duction and that remedy this judicial satisfies whatever may required review be fully I con- Constitution. cur in the and of such desirability proceeding necessity for those who have been inducted who test wish to validity of their induction orders.
It should passing, however, be noted in remedy that this quite illusory many requires instances. one first enter drop every vestige forces armed rights. civil Military orders become the law of life and violations summary procedure. are met with court-martial precedent more drastic condition review No with Many religious has ever framed. persons been meet such a scruples conscientious are unable to condition. *14 quest if is made for But even is inducted and a person a the often The corpus, writ of outlook is bleak. a habeas brought jurisdiction in the in which must be proceeding military, may be by detained the person the is then home, friends, miles removed from his his thousands of counsel, witnesses his board and the who-can tes- his he all these in his Should overcome obstacles tify behalf. money further, he enough proceed still faces possess being military shifted mo- possibility of the at a the jurisdiction, making thus the ment’s notice into another assurance, There is moreover, moot. little proceeding treat efforts to obtain will his the writ military that understanding. These practical diffi- sympathetic with may destroy efficacy remedy whatever thus culties considerable might have and cast doubt on the otherwise corpus proceedings necessarily that habeas assumption law inductees. process due guarantee judicial availability through review habeas But misses the issue this proceedings case. Such corpus provide may adequate remedy or an proceeding been dealing who has inducted. We are person in- persons who have not here, however, with two been will be inducted ducted who never force of corpus attack. writ of habeas follow- orders completely thus non-existent ing remedy induction is so concerned.' petitioners these are far as neither adds to judicial granting the reasons for nor detracts from review proceedings. criminal in these I sort believe, judicial review of some and at
If, as some then when required by Constitution, time is and where petitioners They secure that review? can these have not obtain prior chance to review of induction or- had ders; subsequently oppor- nor will be accorded the they no answer It is test their contentions court. tunity action courses of pursued have different they should induction. Due corpus writs of habeas after and secured people of what dispensed is not on the basis of law process here is done. The sole issue might have or should have now or never. granted process whether due of law to The choice seems obvious. proceeding, judicial review this criminal
By denying You petitioner: to each the courts below effect said illegal you order for which allegedly disobeyed have re- without the benefit of punished must be although if had Constitution, you required by view judicial re- have had all the you the order obeyed appreciate logic necessary. I am at a loss view process It denies due of law justice position. grants to one who charged with a crime and one who is *15 the Constitution to a It closes the door of is obedient. at stake and whose need due liberty is person whose short, In it condemns a man most acute. of law is process hearing. fair without a wrong unjust and basically something about a
There is imprisonment of a man that sanctions system juridical him to claim according opportunity ever without I illegal. yet him is am not will- against charge made system in have such a this that we nation. to conclude ing every legal principle the Constitution Every fiber of are The reports indicate otherwise. fairness justice and full right a fair and affirming the decisions filled with possible opportunity present every defense hearing, the point the chance at some charge and to chal- to criminal a punishment. order before lenge administrative Those legal in ingrained our rudimentary concepts are frame- liberty life or is in ready stand for use whenever work and in application for their this instance peril. The need beyond dispute. seems dealing that we are cognizant the fact must be
We cataclysm legislative born of with a measure here temporary restrictions on many necessitates war, is not power freedom. But the war liberty and personal in- disregard in of all the to be used blind blank check a recog- struggled long so rights which we have dividual used with discretion and It must be preserve. nize and In instance it values. this proportionate with a sense improbable that the war effort necessitates highly seems right charged "'with person of the of a the destruction complete review and consideration of crime to obtain a open long functioning, defense. As as courts are his expendable. review is not All and all of the war of the mobilization effort will have finished, been,in if, when all is we discover that in' vain destroyed very we have freedoms process for which represent significant These small but fought. cases we* judgments that fact. The reversal of the reflection of highest with line below traditions of the therefore Court. Rutledge, concurring.
Mr. Justice
join
I
in the result
each case and in the Court’s
for the
it sets forth. A
opinion
reasons
reason
further
In my judgment
force me to this result.
contrary
construction would invalidate the statute.
I have no
make
doubt that
could
administrative or execu-
action final
such matters as these
tive
the sense of
judicial review,
excluding
excepting only
all
what
by the Constitution in
required
suspension
the absence of
corpus.1
writ of habeas
parte McCardle,
Cf. Ex
*16
1
the Selective Draft Act of
civil
Under
the
courts were not
upon
by
called
enforce
proceedings;
to
induction orders
criminal
for
receipt
automatically subjected
the
such an order
of
a draftee mili
tary
by
disobedience
law and for
thereof he was triable
a court-mar
McIntyre,
Billings
tial for
United
desertion. See
States v.
4 F. 2d
Truesdell,
542, 545-546;
Cases,
v.
321
cf. the
U. S.
Selective
Law
Draft
But as I not judicial violate an power the federal admin- by ishable affording adequate opportunity istrative order without Yakus United invalidity, to show its constitutional cf. 414, 460, opinion,2 S. so even dissenting 321 U. Congress I not think criminal the dis- more do can make allowing. opportunity to such an order no obedisnce is showing unconstitutionality. for its It one whatever in thing deny jurisdiction altogether, of the courts save so the of own may preserve far as Constitution its force juris- jurisdiction. altogether the It is different to confer doing for but in purposes, diction enforcement so to cut off right grounds. all of defense on constitutional not
To sustain such a view the courts have hill marching up again the in the criminal case and down corpus.3 in It habeas would make the function stamp rubber in criminal cases administrative ex- opinion, And see the in authorities- cited the Court’s 321 U. atS. 433,435. Apart question validity splitting from a crim highly inal trial civil parts, into attenuated criminal in issue adequacy opportunity Yakus case related allowed challenging validity Emergency order’s Appeals. in the Court of ruling comprehend did opportunity situation is where no prior during afforded to or the trial. necessary is not in Congress these cases to determine whether scope confine the cause, could of review the criminal on constitu grounds, might tional corpus those asserted habeas after very ordinarily permissible conviction. The fact that scope of objections type proceeding such in the latter considerably more restricted than in former accepting additional reason for not Government’s view that intended to allow review habeas corpus but not defense the criminal trial. rejects view, course, That the idea that “final” the statute final,” is, beyond judicial
“means any reach in manner, as it like- implicitly necessarily wise but jurisdiction”— denies that “within the wholly the local boards —is geographical. *17 trap which, it close action. And would the ecutive Truesdell, 542, 558, said would be Billings v. 321 U. S. we U. were construed United S. set if Falbo v. sought done permit now to have to the what it is petitioners. concurring result. Frankfurter,
Me. Justice since, reenactment Although Congress, 1940, and draft determines whether a that when a board provided the or deferment board’s exemption is entitled now concludes “final,” the Court such decision is regis- when may be but decision is final reviewed wilful jury disobediénce of a tried before a for trant to the such a result opposed board’s order. Not runs counter to achieve- Congress. expressed will by Congress enacting object avowed great ment of practice settled legislation; this it contradicts recog- throughout years, Act war the Sélective Service Congressional opinion; nized as such authoritative appeals before whom the circuit courts of reverses all constituting body of come, impressive matter has than forty views of more expressing decisions and judges; By Witness. Estep was a Jehovah’s case is this. 5 (d) § protection claimed of that fact he
virtue (54 Training Service Act of Stat. Selective App. exempts §305 885, 888; (d)), 50 U. S. C. ministers re or “Regular duly from ordained service against this claim and board ruled ligion . .” His local . is, military serv Estep I-A, classified available He report reported him to induction. ice, ordered accepted by Navy but refused to submit and was Truesdell, 542. This Billings U. S. induction. See 32.1 11 of the Act was then commenced under prosecution 311). That section (54 885, 894; App. § 50 U. S. Stat. C. wilfully disobey person for any offense makes it an Act, regula- of this or the rules “any provisions of the given tions directions thereunder . . .” Conced- made or edly carry out the order board Estep failed to *18 Estep sought to defend submit to induction. disobedience board had ground improperly on that the local denied from service in that exemption they his claim of refused “regular classify duly him a ordained minister as religion proof of . . .” He also offered in defense of right his alleged by bearing misconduct board on of appeal from the board’s decision. Disallowance of these by court, defenses district which after conviction were by sustained the Circuit Court of two Appeals, presents issues consideration: for our I. Is the decision of a local denying board claim exemption subject to reconsider- ation in prosecution a criminal for knowingly failing to discharge required by the duties the Act as a result of such classification? II. Is action by the local board whereby is cut off from the opportunities of a review within process the Selective Service authorized in Act available as defense such prosecution for disobe- dience of the local board’s order? questions These are such moment the enforcement of the Selective Service Act adequate as to call for an statement of the reasons that disagreement impel with major conclusion of the Court.
I. Congress Did place within the Selective Service System authority determining who shall and who shall not services, serve the armed who sháll and who shall not enjoy exemptions and deferments by qualified has duty Or, all to serve? did it leave such determination for reconsideration in trials before juries persons charged with wilful disobedience of duties defined Act? This is the the case crucial issue and the very touches nerve-center of the Selective Service Act; its will with Congress expressed suppose that
One argu- the need of labored clarity, precluding the utmost (a) (2) gives Section purpose. as to its mentation the answer. regulations pre- rules and boards, under local
“Such scribed within power have President, shall by the determine, jurisdictions to hear respective their appeal boards to the right appeal subject to the respect with or claims authorized, questions all herein from, deferment exemption or for, or inclusion all individuals this Act of service únder training and boards. The de- jurisdiction such local within cisions of such except be final where boards shall áuch rules with accordance appeal authorized may prescribe.” the President regulations as (a) (2). App. § 50 U. C! 885,893; S. Stat. if appear to mean they what can mean These words *19 Ordinary should be read. ordinary as words are read they common, everyday mean- their be read with should words If ordinary people. they serve as directions when ing rights and duties designed to define was ever legislation it is the Serv- ordinary people, Selective body of the vast of “final” to make final mean not italicize One need Act. ice any derogation there in the Act is of nowhere final, when finality to “the command of decisions Congressional this reviewability within boards,” only to subject such local System. the Selective Service meaning spon- that the text beyond the goes if one But relevant considerations other taneously yields, all judicial review To allow expresses. what the text confirm respect is not to board’s decision on classification of a provision of a law purpose specific into which a context disregards purpose. To do so properly placed. is understanding the-public did not Congress rely And on the Selective Service passing that moved it-in purpose was considering that the Act Act, well'it'might have, “the explicit: Tt Con- September, 1940. passed
137 gress hereby it imperative declares that to increase and train personnel of" the armed forces of the United (a), States.” (a). Stat. U. S. C. App. many There cannot have been instances in our national life Congress when legislation stamped its as “imperative.” And history amply has desperate urgency. underscored the Congress deemed it imperative to secure vast citizen army with the expedition. utmost It did with re- so due gard for the individual interests giving ample oppor- tunities, within the elaborate system established, which it for supervision of the decisions of multitudinous draft on the boards selection of individuals for As service. such legislation, language explicit, every even were the provision Act of-the should be construed to ful- promote imperative fillment Surely which inspired need it. subject thé aim hamper the de- process cisions determining selective who ame- nable to service to reconsideration the cumbersome process by jury, of trial admirably suited as that is for familiar controversies when the nation’s'life stake. is not at To avoid such a palpable upon Congressional pur- inroad pose, we need implications. merely not draw on must We resist unwarranted implications that sterilize what Con- expressly gress required. has
In construing the Act, this Court has applied heretofore the reasons which led Congress rely on wholly System in determining rights Selective Service This is individuals. what we said years ago: two “To meet the need which it for mobilizing felt na- *20 tional the manpower practicable shortest period, Congress established a machinery which it deemed great efficient inducting for numbers of men into the made, armed forces. provision Careful for fair administration policies of the Act’s within frame- the work of the process.” selective service We so ruled Falbo v. United 320 U. S. 554. That was challenge a case which we held that a to a trial upon raised cannot board’s classification where order, Court’s violátion present
like the accepted he is before disobeys the order registrant the decisions the Congress made But service. national the stage at the regard to “final” board the without command The registrant disobey^'it. the regis- the after less final no thfeboard makes the decision of than examination pre-induction to the trant has submitted is the board finality of The such submissibn. before re- authority of the courts to diminished, nor neither flouts enlarged, because decision view such stage. early at a late process Service at Selective all-inclu- unqualified and language of the statute The final ex- boards shall be “The of such local decisions sive: in accordance with such appeal is cept where an authorized prescribe.” the President regulations as rules forty than of more Such has been the construction question appeals.1 in the circuit courts of judges before the Circuit by the facts of this case has come raised First, Second, Third, for the Appeals Courts Sixth, Eighth Fourth, Fifth, the Seventh and judges: This a list First'Circuit: Woodbury, Mahoney, Peters. Hand,
Second Circuit: Learned Hand, Swan, Augustus Chase, N. designated Clark, Simons, (the sitting Frank, Hutcheson last two judges). Jones, Maris, Goodrich, (the Third Circuit: McLaughlin, Parker sitting designated judge). last as a Fourth Circuit: Parker, Soper, Dobie, Northcott. McCord, Sibley, Hutcheson, Waller, Lee, Circuit: Holmes, Fifth
Strum. Sixth Circuit: Hicks, Simons, Hamilton, Martin.
Seventh Lindley, Circuit: Major, Kerner, Minton, Evans, Sparks, Briggle.
Eighth Thomas, Johnsen, Sanborn, Woodrough, Riddick. Circuit: Falbo, contrary expressed Since views have been Judges Biggs Leahy in the court below No. 292.
139
judicial
re
them, have ruled
All, eight Circuits.
available,
is not
board classification
draft
view of á
has sub
though the
even
prosecution,
criminal
Sirski
examination.
physical
pre-induction
mitted to the
1944); United
States,
2
also,
Kauten,
(C.
See,
2d,
United States v.
“Under the act as it is now written, registrants who ordered to submit are induction into the armed forces not refuse and defend such refusals a prosecution criminal the'ground on that their classi- fications were given not fair by consideration their In boards. order obtain judicial a determination registrants of such issues such must submit to first induction and by habeas corpus.” raise issue H. Rep. R. 36, No. 79th Cong., 1st (1945) Sess. 4-5. Congress wanted men get into the army, not to liti- gate about getting in. And legislated so it on the as- sumption that carefully its devised scheme for determin- ing within the Selective System, Service who was under duty to serve in army go awry too seldom to justify allowance of review by courts. If challenges to such determination by the Selective Service System found baseless, were as they were so as found a matter of experience all but negligible number of instances, the having men submitted to induction would inbe the army, such, available as and not in prison.for disobedience. Ac- cordingly, Congress legislated discourage obstruction delay through court dilatory proceedings that would had if review of classification have been inevitable during the war years. been afforded . reading its that “final” does support finds for
The Court in the that not even at a time our mean final fact corpus greatest emergency was the writ habeas national safeguard personal liberty. withdrawn as the ultimate Art..I, Constitution, cl. 9,§ See U. S. Stat. 28 U. S. C. 451. But this
amended, general right § question legal the entiré want of foundation for a re- Congress straint is no measure of the issues that open left jury in a determination trial disobedience of orders of the local draft boards made (2). “final” 10 (a) Still justify less can it nullification of explicit direc- tion such finally .orders shall be deter- mined within the framework of the Sys- Selective Service habeas, corpus tem. issues proceeding quickly are *23 joined, strictly limited and swiftly disposed by single judge. See Stat. 28 U. S. 465. C. cor- Habeas pus proceedings are freed from the cumbersomeness which proper price is a pay for countervailing advantages jury in appropriate trials situations. corpus Habeas “comes in from the outside,” regular after proceedings formally defined by law have ended, “not in subordination proceedings, to the and although every form may have preserved opens been inquiry they whether have been empty more than ah shell.” Holmes, J., dissenting in Mangum, Frank v. 309, U. S. 346. corpus, Habeas conviction, not, after could of course, serve as a revisory process of the determination of classification which Con- gress lodged with in finality the draft boards. It could only be used those hardly conceivable situations which the proceedings the draft before board were a mere sham, “nothing but empty an form.” Ibid. The availa- bility such a remote contingency of habeas corpus even after conviction is certainly no reason for deflecting and confusing a trial for the simple issue by § defined an order
namely, disregard whether a wilful there was ranging system System, the Selective Service made thing for It is one the local board to the President. from though even corpus writ of habeas to be available g., “final.” e. action be See otherwise administrative White, It quite 276. another Fung Ho v. 259 U. S. Ng thereby disrupt a whole judicial review and interpolate millions of orders need legislation which scheme of under respected to be promptly be made and promptly to finality when endowed with sanctions for were therefore sought. are disobedience denying purpose the evident ground
Another in which it disregarding expressed the terms Congress and cías-, of a validity that'the suggestion is the purpose, of the board” to issue an “jurisdiction goes to the sification Congress say did not But induction. report for order to properly when act- boards “the decision such simply final.” said their'authority shall be ing boards shall of such local “The decisions unqualifiedly given power are local boards . . be sure final .” To But respective jurisdictions.” all their “within to act such authority have confers upon agencies jurisdic- respective “within'their impliedly only authority the door to opened limitation inherent If that tions.” proceeding every enforcement their action review of finality is finality, provision provisions despite meaningless. multiply, revives, if indeed it does argument
This *24 by the doctrine of spawned difficulties the casuistic all that, which In of criticism “jurisdictional fact.” view the Benson, 22, 285 U. S. doctrine, sponsored by as Crowell v. through of that case brought forth and of the attritions doctrine had decisions, supposed that later one had withholding judicial In review repose. earned a deserved Congress concerned, in the with which we are situations with dealing acting that was upon the conviction fittingly lodged the exclusive more matters were in’ System. Even cases discretion Service of Selective chosen to act on such a exigency, Congress of has far less Powell, Re 314 U. Final See, e.g., Gray v. S. view. Administra port Attorney General’s Committee on any (1941) tive Procedure But the short answer 86. claim reviewability drawn from the confinement of respective jurisdic their local boards action “within Congress geography tions” is that was concerned with “jurisdic Throughout Act, not with law. this the term geographic tion” has this connotation. reasonable Is it - Congress, creating to believe bent on armed vast quickly possible, force as effect every authorize System order Service Selective to be reconsidered upon disregard trials for of such orders? The Act does power not differentiate between the of the board to al exemptions power grant low its deferments. The authority boards were invested with final to determine subject such matters only to such review as the Act au Congress When thorizes. talked acting about a.board within jurisdiction its it meant that a had sub papers mitted his to a board either because he resided within its area or for some other relevant reg reason had it. istered with years
For five circuit courts appeals have con (a) (2) strued mean that Congress established a system organizing a vast army, citizen’s the selection of which shall be civilian boards with such control over them as the President may Designed formulate. obstruc meeting tion of this means of the great emergency was' Congress made an offense. That had the Constitu power argument tional to do so needs no at this date. late Cases, 245 See Selective Law U. 366; Hirabayashi S. Draft 320 U. 93. United S. And yet the Court today eight holds that courts appeals wrong circuit were in reading Congress'as language it, wrote *25 though
even in doing so these courts were respectful of the considerations that Congress moved to write the Act itas did order to raise that army. If so, this be not only they were wrong, but probably hundreds of convictions for disobedience of local board regard orders based on such Congress written, what had were invalid.
II. Congress Since has made final the decision of.a local board on exemption, a’claim of its decision exemption as to reopened cannot be upon a trial for disobedience of the board’s order. But also appeal authorized an from the appeal local board to an ultimately board and to the President. Congress has given to the local authority board to decide when such statutory rights of appeal may of, be availed nor to make “final” unwarranted whereby action a board appeal such is frustrated. Cf. Tung United (C. F. 2d 1st, 1944). C. A. if Accordingly, obey does not an order of in- duction because the board has cut off the opportunity gives which the him appeal statute to higher to authority, obligation his of obedience has not yet matured. There- fore he discharge has not failed to obligation his under Act. The duty obey is not merely duty obey an board, order of the draft obey but to such an order after subject it is no longer to review within the Selective Serv- System. ice “The decisions of such local boards shall be except final where appeal is authorized in accordance regulations with such rules and as the may pre- President scribe.” Estep made the claim effectively that he was denied the right appeal in addition to his inadmissible defense that the local classified him board improperly. prove He offered all practical purposes board right frustrated his go to have his the appeal case board, in violation of the duty board’s the Act and the Regulations. been allowed to make Estep should have proof of by appropriate this claim motion to be disposed by sig- the court. As situations comparable legal *26 nificance, a may, course, trial court leave controverted jury. issues fact to the
Another issue is presented petitioner the in No. 66. alleges The indictment report a failure to for induction. petitioner .While-the report did not at the local board do, he was forcibly ordered to he was taken to the induc- tion center through and went- pre-induction physical the examination but subsequently refused in- to submit to duction. An report induction, order to in as we said Billings Truesdell, “includes a command to submit to S., Collura, induction.” 321 U. at United States v. 139 F. 2d (C. 1943). C. A. 2d, is, however, There basis petitioner’s the contention that case was tried and submitted to the jury on the that theory he failed to show up at his board. He substantially complied with request by being the induction at center for exami- nation. The is charge ambiguous. trial court’s at best court apparently The more than once charged not that he induction, did not to submit but that appear he failed to voluntarily points. at the induction “A ought conviction rest equivocal not to on jury direction to the on a basic issue.” Bollenbach v. United S.U. 607. On ground this conviction properly is reversed. with Burton,
Me. Justice whom Mr. Chief Justice concurs, dissenting. Stone
The I think judgment that.the Chief Justice conviction these cases should be affirmed for reasons I of opinion. stated Part Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s (a) think (2) We that under Selective Serv- Act, construed, required, ice rightly registrant is on pain of order penalties, obey to local board’s criminal report though to forces, for induction into the armed even appeal the board’s board on order or action of based, ju- is “In is erroneous. order obtain a registrants determination of issues dicial such such must first submit raise issue induction habeas Cong., 79th corpus.” Rep. (1945) H. 1st Sess. 5. No. that if the for disobedience follows indicted ground defend on the he cannot board’s order complied or, been with if con- procedure draft has not ground by on that resort to habeas victed, secure his release him open that such relief corpus. result is when he is obeys induction, he the order and submits if corpus. free seek habeas either sufficient basis find the record of case
We do not grounds suggested II thereof on the Part 'for reversal opinion. of Me. Frankfurter’s Justice *27 GENERAL, POSTMASTER HANNEGAN, ESQUIRE, INC. 4, 1946. February January 11, 1946. Decided Argued 399.
No.