Sicurella v. United States

Last updated

Sicurella v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 1, 1955
Decided March 14, 1955
Full case nameSicurella v. United States
Citations348 U.S. 385 ( more )
75 S. Ct. 403; 99 L. Ed. 436; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1079
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton  · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton
Case opinions
MajorityClark, joined by Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Burton
DissentReed
DissentMinton

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.

Contents

Background

Sicurella, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, filed a petition for conscientious objector status in regards to the Selective Service of the United States Armed Forces in 1950. Sicurella had previously been classified as a minister, but was reclassified for general service in 1950, leading to his petition. His request was subsequently denied by the Department of Justice on the grounds that he did not meet the legal requirement for a conscious objector to object to participation in war in any form. Sicurella had indicated on his petition that he was willing to fight in a hypothetical theocratic war if commanded to by Jehovah and Jesus Christ. The Department of Justice acknowledged his claim was sincere, but determined that because he was willing to fight in defense of his ministry and Kingdom interests that he wasn't opposed to war in all forms. [1] After they denied him Sicurella filed an appeal and the case made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States on the urging of T. Oscar Smith, the head of the Conscientious Objector Section at the Department of Justice, who had refused to grant the status to Jehovah's Witnesses who agreed with their religion's doctrine about war. [2]

Decision

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote the opinion of the court, which was decided by a 6–2 vote on March 14, 1955. The court sided with Sicurella and determined that the Department of Justice could not assume that Congress had intended to include hypothetical theocratic wars in its requirements for conscientious objector status. In the court opinion, Justice Clark wrote that Congress clearly intended for the requirement to only reflect "real shooting wars". [3] He further points out that Sicurella made it clear that the weapons of his potential war would be spiritual, not carnal, and that Congress could not possibly be assumed to have included the climactic battles of Armageddon from various religious philosophies in their creation of the law. Therefore, the denial of his claim was subsequently overturned by the court and he was granted conscientious objector status. [4]

Two dissenting opinions were written, one by Justice Stanley F. Reed and one by Justice Sherman Minton.

Reed stated in his dissenting opinion that he would require Sicurella to serve because his willingness to use force in defense of "Kingdom interests" is inconsistent with his claimed opposition to war. [5]

Minton stated in his dissenting opinion that the court only had the power to decide issues of local board decisions if they are "so wanton, arbitrary and capricious as to destroy the integrity of the Board." [6] Minton states that by the court's own opinion the decision by the board and the Department of Justice was made in good faith and therefore the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this issue. Minton also states that he disagrees with the assertion that a religious war is not relevant to the conscientious objector issue, saying that it is still choosing some wars to participate in over others. Minton also points out Sicurella's willingness to use carnal weapons in defense of Kingdom interests as evidence that the two types of war can not be rightly separated in this case. [7]

Impacts

The decision is still in effect and actively mentioned as an example of a conscientious objector issue by the United States Selective Service to this day. [8] The case has also been brought up by leaders in other faiths, such as the Mormon faith, [9] in discussions about the issue of conscientious objector status in their faiths. The case also played a role in the decision of the Supreme Court case Gillette v. United States , which covers similar issues around religion and what classifies as a conscientious objector. [10]

See also

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">Hugo Black</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1937 to 1971

Hugo Lafayette Black was an American lawyer, politician, and jurist who served as a U.S. Senator from Alabama from 1927 to 1937 and as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971. A member of the Democratic Party and a devoted New Dealer, Black endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt in both the 1932 and 1936 presidential elections.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials".

Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the religious rights of public school students under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States. The Supreme Court overruled this decision three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Minton</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1949 to 1956

Sherman "Shay" Minton was an American politician and jurist who served as a U.S. senator from Indiana and later became an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; he was a member of the Democratic Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harlan F. Stone</span> Chief justice of the United States from 1941 to 1946

Harlan Fiske Stone was an American attorney and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1925 to 1941 and then as the 12th chief justice of the United States from 1941 until his death in 1946. He also served as the U.S. Attorney General from 1924 to 1925 under President Calvin Coolidge, with whom he had attended Amherst College as a young man. His most famous dictum was: "Courts are not the only agency of government that must be assumed to have capacity to govern."

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court decision handed down in 1964 involving whether the state of Ohio could, consistent with the First Amendment, ban the showing of the Louis Malle film The Lovers, which the state had deemed obscene.

<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.

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.

Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress reauthorized the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the Act as gender distinction. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Act, holding that its gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

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.

Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held it does not restrain criminal prosecutions made in good faith unless there would be some "irreparable injury." This case is one of four cases collectively known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses Cases", because the Supreme Court handed down rulings on these four cases related to the Jehovah's Witnesses on the same day. Although the Supreme Court ruled against the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, it ruled in favor of them in the other three cases and those represent landmark decisions in the area of First Amendment constitutional law.

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.

Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.

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. The minister argued that, in the absence of a declaration of war, a draft was not authorized and was equivalent to involuntary servitude.

Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442 (1947), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found that courts have only limited scope of review over a Selective Service Board's classification of a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister.

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.

Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state statute making it an offense to distribute literature in a federal government-owned town was an improper restriction on freedom of the press and religion.

Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.

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.

References

  1. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  2. CAPIZZI, JOSEPH E. (1996). "Selective Conscientious Objection in the United States". Journal of Church and State. 38 (2): 339–363. doi:10.1093/jcs/38.2.339. ISSN   0021-969X. JSTOR   23921178.
  3. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  4. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  5. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  6. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  7. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  8. "Alternative Service Cases". Selective Service System. Retrieved October 28, 2022.
  9. Madson, Ron (December 1, 2018). "The Restoration of Conscientious Objection". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought . 51 (4): 77–104. doi: 10.5406/dialjmormthou.51.4.0077 . S2CID   246624838. Archived from the original on February 6, 2022. Retrieved June 25, 2023.
  10. "Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 28, 2022.