http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/conscientious-objectors/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Was Cassius Clay's induction notice invalid because it was grounded upon an erroneous denial of his claim to be classified as a conscientious objector?</p><p>Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that since the Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to Clay, and that it was impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, Clay's conviction must be reversed. The Court reasoned that Clay satisfied the first two tests of conscientious objection. Regarding the third test, the Court concluded that whether or not Clay met the test of conscientious objection to war in any form, it was not clear that the Appeal Board relied on some legitimate ground in denying the claim, and therefore the conviction could not stand. In separate opinions, Justices William O. Douglas and John M. Harlan concurred. Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_783/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_120/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_58/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_85/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_416/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_643/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_362/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_655/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_91/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_305/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_50/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_77/ <p>Did the Justice Department's policy of passive enforcement of the Selective Service Act, in which it prosecuted only those men who were reported by others or who reported themselves for not registering with the Selective Service system, violate the First and Fifth Amendments?</p><p>No. The Supreme Court held, 7-to-2, that the government's passive enforcement policy was constitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Lewis Powell found that the government's policy was not unconstitutional selective enforcement (in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection clause) because men who had not taken an outspoken stance against the Selective Service, but who were merely reported by others for failing to register, were treated the same as those men who had notified the government of their own refusal to register. Justice Powell wrote, "In the present case, petitioner has not shown that the Government prosecuted him because of his protest activities. Absent such a showing, his claim of selective prosecution fails."</p> <p>To decide the First Amendment challenge, Justice Powell cited four requirements for incidental government regulation of speech laid out in United States v. O'Brien: the regulation must be within the government's constitutional power, must further an important or substantial government interest, must have an interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and must restrict only as much speech as is necessary to meet the government interest. Powell found that the passive enforcement policy satisfied all these requirements, and therefore did not violate the First Amendment.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1292/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_76/