Holmes v. United States

Last updated
Holmes v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided May 27, 1968
Full case nameAlbert H. Holmes v. United States
Citations391 U.S. 936 ( more )
88 S. Ct. 1835; 20 L. Ed. 2d 856; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1576
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781 (7th Cir. 1967)
Holding
Certiorari denied.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Abe Fortas  · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
ConcurrenceStewart
DissentDouglas

Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari to a Jehovah's Witnesses minister who asked the Court to decide whether a draft of men into the Armed Forces in times of peace is constitutionally permissible. [1] The minister argued that, in the absence of a declaration of war, a draft was not authorized and was equivalent to involuntary servitude.

Contents

Facts of the case

Albert H. Holmes was classified in August 1965 as a conscientious objector by his Selective Service Appeal Board. Section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 stated that a conscientious objector who, like petitioner, is also opposed to noncombatant military service, may in lieu of induction "be ordered by his local board ... to perform ... such civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest as the local board may deem appropriate." Beginning in October 1965 Holmes exchanged a series of letters with his local board in which the Board explained to Holmes the types of civilian work available and Holmes asserted his religious scruples against serving the United States Government in any capacity, including civilian work programs. Holmes reiterated this position in a personal meeting with his local board.

On February 7, 1966, the Board sent Holmes an order to report on February 21 to an Illinois state hospital for civilian work assignment. However, on the day he was due to report, Holmes notified the Board that he refused to do so for religious reasons. [1]

Prior history

Holmes was charged with willful failure to report as ordered, in violation of 12(a) of the Selective Service Act. At his nonjury trial Holmes moved for judgment of acquittal. That motion was denied, Holmes was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conscientious objector</span> Person refusing military service on moral grounds

A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Selective Service System</span> American conscription system

The Selective Service System (SSS) is an independent agency of the United States government that maintains information on U.S. citizens and other U.S. residents potentially subject to military conscription and carries out contingency planning and preparations for two types of draft: a general draft based on registration lists of men aged 18–25, and a special-skills draft based on professional licensing lists of workers in specified health care occupations. In the event of either type of draft, the Selective Service System would send out induction notices, adjudicate claims for deferments or exemptions, and assign draftees classified as conscientious objectors to alternative service work. All male U.S. citizens and immigrant non-citizens who are between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays, and must notify the Selective Service within ten days of any changes to any of the information they provided on their registration cards, such as a change of address. The Selective Service System is a contingency mechanism for the possibility that conscription becomes necessary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conscription in the United States</span> History of mandatory military service in the United States

In the United States, military conscription, commonly known as the draft, has been employed by the U.S. federal government in six conflicts: the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The fourth incarnation of the draft came into being in 1940, through the Selective Training and Service Act. It was the country's first peacetime draft. From 1940 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the U.S. Armed Forces that could not be filled through voluntary means. Active conscription in the United States ended in 1973, when the U.S. Armed Forces moved to an all-volunteer military. However, conscription remains in place on a contingency basis and all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing within the United States, who are 18 through 25 are required to register with the Selective Service System. United States federal law also continues to provide for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 44 who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, U.S. citizens, and certain women for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246.

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Though the court recognized that O'Brien's conduct was expressive as a protest against the Vietnam War, it considered the law justified by a significant government interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and was tailored towards that end.

Katsuki James Otsuka was a Nisei Japanese American Quaker who was jailed as a conscientious objector during World War II, and later became a war tax resister.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center on Conscience & War</span>

The Center on Conscience & War (CCW) is a United States non-profit anti-war organization located in Washington, D.C., dedicated to defending and extending the rights of conscientious objectors. The group participates in the G.I. Rights Hotline, and works against all forms of conscription. There are no charges for any of CCW's services.

The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) was a United States nonprofit organization dedicated to helping people avoid or resist military conscription or seek discharge after voluntary enlistment. It was active in supporting conscientious objectors ("CO's"), war resisters and draft evaders during the Vietnam War. Founded in Philadelphia in 1948 and dissolved in 2011, CCCO emphasized the needs of secular and activist COs, while other organizations supporting COs principally focused on religious objectors and/or legislative reform and government relations.

The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would legalize a form of conscientious objection to military taxation.

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971), was Muhammad Ali's appeal of his conviction in 1967 for refusing to report for induction into the United States military forces during the Vietnam War. His local draft board had rejected his application for conscientious objector classification. In a unanimous 8–0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction that had been upheld by the Fifth Circuit.

Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a draft board's alleged error in classifying a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister of religion is no defense to the board's order to report for national service; post-reporting review of the classification is sufficient due process.

Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that willingness to fight in "theocratic" wars does not disqualify a Jehovah's Witness who would otherwise be eligible for exemption as a conscientious objector.

Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alternative civilian service</span> Alternative to military service in countries with military conscription

Alternative civilian service, also called alternative services, civilian service, non-military service, and substitute service, is a form of national service performed in lieu of military conscription for various reasons, such as conscientious objection, inadequate health, or political reasons. See "labour battalion" for examples of the latter case. Alternative service usually involves some kind of labor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Comly French</span> American journalist

Paul Comly French was an American reporter, writer, anti-war activist and non-profit executive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War resister</span> Person who resists war

A war resister is a person who resists war. The term can mean several things: resisting participation in all war, or a specific war, either before or after enlisting in, being inducted into, or being conscripted into a military force.

In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. The Illinois Constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. Petitioner Clyde Summers could not uphold that constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of his license of practice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Draft-card burning</span> Vietnam War draft protests, 1964–1973

Draft-card burning was a symbol of protest performed by thousands of young men in the United States and Australia in the 1960s and early 1970s. The first draft-card burners were American men taking part in the opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The first well-publicized protest was in December 1963, with a 22-year old conscientious objector, Eugene Keyes, setting fire to his card on Christmas Day in Champaign, Illinois. In May 1964, a larger demonstration, with about 50 people in Union Square, New York, was organized by the War Resisters League chaired by David McReynolds.

Thomas Glenn Jolley was an anti-Vietnam War protester who renounced his U.S. citizenship in Canada. Soon after his renunciation, Jolley crossed back into the U.S. and began working in Florida. A U.S. federal court ruled that he was deportable, but the Immigration and Naturalization Service could not actually deport him to Canada because he had lost his Canadian-landed immigrant status. He died in Asheville, North Carolina, at the age of 70.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, adding constraints on the terms of conscientious objection resulting from draftees in the Selective Service.

Conscientious objection in the United States is based on the Military Selective Service Act, which delegates its implementation to the Selective Service System. Conscientious objection is also recognized by the Department of Defense.

References

  1. 1 2 Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936 (1968).
  2. United States v. Holmes, 387F.2d781 ( 7th Cir. 1967).