pre-induction review permitted where Selective Service Board ordered petitioner to report for induction despite fact that he was admittedly entitled by law to a student deferment
How later courts described this case
- pre-induction review permitted where Selective Service Board ordered petitioner to report for induction despite fact that he was admittedly entitled by law to a student deferment
- delinquency reclassification for Breen’s surrender of his draft registration card at a public gathering to protest United States involvement in the Vietnam war
- denial of II-S deferment for delinquency held to be a “clear departure by the Board from its statutory mandate”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Fine v. Tarr, 330 F. Supp. 573 (1971)
On appeal, the tenth circuit affirmed, holding that Oestereich and Breen were factually distinguishable:
Distinguished by McCormick ex rel. McCormick v. Selective Service Local Board No. 41, 316 F. Supp. 974 (1970)
On this basis, Oestereich and Breen are distinguishable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
In Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U. S. 233 (1968), I joined Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissent expressing the view that § 10 (b) (3) was designed to permit judicial review of draft classifications only in connection with criminal prosecutions or habeas corpus proceedings, 393 IJ. S., at 245. But continued adherence to that construction is foreclosed by the Court’s holding in that case that § 10 (b) (3) did not preclude pre-induction judicial review of the case of a registrant entitled to a statutory *470 exemption. Therefore, because I too “fail to see any relevant practical or legal differences between exemptions and deferments,” I join the opinion of the Court.