SIMMONS v. UNITED STATES
No. 251
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 2, 1955. Decided March 14, 1955.
348 U.S. 397
Robert W. Ginnane argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and Carl H. Imlay.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents another question concerning the processing of conscientious objector claims under the
Petitioner registered under the selective service laws in 1948. He was then employed as a chauffeur at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, having had 8 years of grade school and 2 1/2 years of high school. At that time, he did not claim to be a minister or a conscientious objector, but stated that he believed his classification
Following an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, petitioner was notified to appear for a hearing. No copy of the notice appears in the record, but it appears that the form sent to registrants during the period in question stated that the hearing officer would advise the registrant “as to the general nature and character” of adverse evidence in the FBI report if he requested such information “at any time after receipt by him of the notice of hearing and before the date
In its report to the Appeal Board, the Department of Justice adopted the hearing officer‘s recommendation, relying on the timing of petitioner‘s religious activities and “his abusiveness and the exercise of physical violence towards his wife.”2 The latter reason rested on data presumably gathered by the FBI. According to the Depart-
Section 6 (j) of the Act provides that “[t]he Department of Justice, after appropriate inquiry, shall hold a hearing with respect to the character and good faith” of the claimed conscientious objections. In United States v. Nugent, supra, we held that this “hearing” did not entail disclosure of the secret FBI reports. In reaching this conclusion, however, we relied on the availability to the registrant of a fair résumé of these reports:
“... We think the Department of Justice satisfies its duties under
§ 6 (j) when it accords a fair opportunity to the registrant to speak his piece before an impartial hearing officer; when it permits him to produce all relevant evidence in his own behalf and at the same time supplies him with a fair résumé of any adverse evidence in the investigator‘s report.” 346 U. S., at 6.
We did not view this provision for a fair summary as a matter of grace within the Department‘s discretion, but rather as an essential element in the processing of conscientious objector claims. United States v. Nugent represented a balancing between the demands of an effective system for mobilizing the Nation‘s manpower in times of crisis and the demands of fairness toward the individual registrant. We permitted the FBI report to remain secret because we were of the view that other safeguards in the proceeding, particularly the furnishing of a fair résumé, maintained the basic elements of fair play. If the balance struck in Nugent is to be preserved, the registrant must receive the fair summary to which he is entitled. The Department expressly recognizes this and, since Nugent, has furnished each registrant, at the time
The Government assumes that the Department of Justice is required to furnish the registrant with a fair résumé upon request. But it contends that petitioner failed to make a timely request for the summary; that the remarks of the hearing officer gave him adequate notice of the unfavorable evidence in the FBI report; and, finally, that the lack of notice, if there was such, was harmless.
As to the request for the summary, the Government must rely on a document which is not in the record and which was not open to attack or explanation in the trial court. Indeed, had the Government produced the form notice in the lower courts, petitioner might have been able to show that he had made a request prior to the hearing. But leaving these difficulties aside, the notice reproduced in the Government‘s brief does not, in our view, convey clearly to the layman the idea that he must make a request for the résumé prior to the hearing or forever waive his rights in this respect.5 There is nothing in either the statute or the regulations authorizing such a waiver. And the discussion of this point in Nugent, 346 U. S., at 6, n. 10, was not directed at the time or method of requesting the résumé, but only at its availability.
That petitioner never received a fair résumé of the unfavorable evidence gleaned by the FBI seems hardly arguable on this record. As to his alleged gambling and drinking, the hearing officer merely told petitioner that he was reported to have been hanging around pool rooms. And
The Government‘s argument that no prejudice was shown and none resulted can be readily disposed of. Relying on a case concerned with constitutional restrictions on the States in regulating public utilities, Market Street Railway Co. v. Railroad Comm‘n of California, 324 U. S. 548, it contends that the petitioner must specifically show prejudice in order to question the fairness of the résumé. The holding of the Market Street Railway case was that the Due Process Clause was “not to be trivialized by formal objections that have no substantial bearing on the ultimate rights of parties,” that the Commission could make “incidental reference” to the railroad‘s own reports to verify its judgment, formulated on the basis of the entire record, without introducing the reports in evidence. Id., at 562. We are not now dealing with constitutional limitations. We are endeavoring to apply a procedure, set forth by Congress, in accordance with the statutory plan and the concepts of basic fairness which underlie all our legislation. We have held that to meet its duty under
It being evident from the record before the Court that the Department of Justice has failed to provide petitioner with a fair résumé of the FBI report, it is unnecessary for us to pass on petitioner‘s further contention that the trial court erred in quashing his subpoena duces tecum.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, adhering to their dissent in Nugent v. United States, 346 U. S. 1, 13, join in this opinion and judgment.
MR. JUSTICE REED would affirm on the ground that, as no summary was requested, it was not necessary to furnish more to the registrant than was given by the hearing officer. See Gonzales v. United States, decided today, post, p. 407.
MR. JUSTICE MINTON, dissenting.
Even if the Board has denied petitioner a fair résumé of all adverse information in the FBI reports, it does not appear to have been done arbitrarily or capriciously, and the judgment of the Board in doing so was allowable “even if erroneous.” It takes more than disagreement with the Board to destroy jurisdiction, the only condition upon which courts may interfere. I would affirm.