Edwards v. United States

145 F.2d 678, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 2, 1944
DocketNo. 10393
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 F.2d 678 (Edwards v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwards v. United States, 145 F.2d 678, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2606 (9th Cir. 1944).

Opinion

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing appellant to one year in the penitentiary upon conviction on an indictment charging that appellant, having been classified by his local selective service board as a conscientious objector — that is Class IV-E • — did knowingly and wilfully refuse to report for work of national importance, he having been ordered so to do by his selective service board.

Appellant claims that he has a constitutional right to due process in the hearing of the board in the classification proceeding and that it was denied him by the arbitrary and unjust conduct of that tribunal, citing Bradley v. City of Richmond, 227 U.S. 477, 33 S.Ct. 318, 57 L.Ed. 603. It is not necessary to pass upon that constitutional question or on the constitutional right to seek the federal court’s protection of that right in the present proceeding under claimed interpretations of the cases of Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, and Billings v. Trucsdell, 321 U. S. 542, 64 S.Ct. 737 — particularly the language of the latter case at page 558 of 321 U.S. at page 746 of 64 S.Ct. that “Moreover, it should be remembered that he who reports at the induction station is following the procedure outlined in the Falbo case for the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. Unless he follows that procedure he may not challenge the legality of his classification in the courts.”

The evidence is clear that appellant appeared at the local board office in response to an order to report there for assignment to the Civilian Public Service Camp and that he refused to go to that camp. It is stipulated that he had then passed his final-type physical examination of his fitness for work at the camp but, under the existing regulations, if one becomes unfit at the time of arrival at the camp one is given a further physical examination and if then rejected is to be returned to the board for further consideration of one’s status.1

[680]*680We hold that the civil administration of the selective service act does not terminate until the selectee in IV-E arrives at the camp to which he is ordered in physical condition fit for the service.

Even assuming the selectee has the constitutional right to have his claim of an arbitrary classification heard in a criminal prosecution for violation of a board order, which we do not decide, appellant had not exhausted the requirements of the selective service process when his disobedience occurred, and hence, under any interpretation of the Billings and Falbo decisions, had not arrived at the point where he could challenge the action of the board as an arbitrary violation of due process.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Sutter
127 F. Supp. 109 (S.D. California, 1954)
United States v. Kirschenman
65 F. Supp. 153 (D. South Dakota, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 F.2d 678, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-united-states-ca9-1944.