http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/conscientious-objectors/ U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Board No. 47, Louisville, Kentucky, denied the application of Cassius Clay, also known as Muhammad Ali, for classification as a conscientious objector. Clay then took an administrative appeal to the Kentucky Appeal Board, which tentatively classified him I-A, or eligible for unrestricted military service, and referred his file to the Justice Department for an advisory recommendation. The Justice Department concluded, contrary to a hearing officer's recommendation, that Clay's claim should be denied. The Department wrote that Clay did not meet any of the three basic tests for conscientious objector status; that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief, and that this objection is sincere. Subsequently, the Appeal Board denied Clay's claim, but without stating its reasons. When Clay refused to report for induction, he was tried and convicted of willful refusal to submit to induction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.</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>Mr. Wayte was required by a 1980 Presidential Proclamation to register with the Selective Service system. Instead, he wrote letters to various government officials stating that he had not registered and did not intend to do so. Wayte's letters were added to a file kept by the Selective Service of men who had informed the government that they were not complying with the proclamation.</p> <p>The Selective Service later adopted a policy of passive enforcement, in which it would prosecute only men who had either reported to the government that they were not registering or whom other people had reported to the government for not registering. After a long series of requests by the government that Wayte register (all of which he failed to respond to), the government eventually indicted Wayte in federal district court for violating the Military Selective Service Act.</p> <p>The district court, however, dismissed the indictment, holding that the government's passive enforcement policy was unconstitutional because it amounted to selective prosecution of only those men who took an outspoken stance against the Selective Service. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Wayte had failed to show that the government focused its attention on him because of his protest activities.</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/