Appellant, a Jehovah's Witness, claimed exemption from service under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, relying upon that section which exempts from service "Regularly or duly ordained ministers of religion .... " Appellant's local board ruled against his claim and classified him as available for military service (Class I-A). He took his case to the appeal board, where the local board's classification was affirmed. State and National Directors of Selective Service having refused to appeal to the President for him, appellant's local board ordered him to report for induction. He reported at the proper time and place, was accepted by the Navy, but refused to be inducted, reasserting his claim to exemption. The government indicted him for wilfully failing and refusing to submit to induction. Appellant sought to defend on the ground that he was improperly classified through arbitrary and capricious action of the administrative agencies. The District Court rejected this defense and refused to permit the introduction of evidence to sustain it. The circuit court of appeals affirmed. Held, that accused was entitled to show as defense that local draft boards exceeded their jurisdiction by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in classifying him, and failure to permit him to do so required reversal of conviction in order to permit a new trial. Estep v. United States, (U.S. 1946) 66 S. Ct. 423.
Thomas L. Dalrymple,
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT-PROPER PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF DRAFT CLASSIFICATION,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol44/iss5/21