Estep v. United States

Estep v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 1945 Decided February 4, 1946
Full case name	'
Citations	327 U.S. 114 (more) 66 S. Ct. 423; 90 L. Ed. 567; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2807
Court membership
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
Majority	Douglas
Concurrence	Murphy
Concurrence	Rutledge
Concurrence	Frankfurter
Dissent	Burton, joined by Stone
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (1946),^[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a draft board's refusal to classify a Jehovah's Witness as minister is, after exhausting administrative remedies, subject to judicial review.

Facts of the case

Estep's local board classified him as I-A, i.e., as available for military service. Sec. 5(d) of the Selective Service Act exempts from training and service (but not from registration) "regular or duly ordained ministers of religion". Under the regulations those in that category are classified as IV-D. Estep, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, claimed that he was entitled to that classification. The local board ruled against him. He took his case to the appeal board which classified him as I-A. He then asked the State and National Directors of Selective Service to appeal to the President for him. His request was refused. The local board thereupon ordered him to report for induction. He reported at the time and place indicated. He was accepted by the Navy. But he refused to be inducted, claiming that he was exempt from service because he was an ordained minister of the gospel. He was indicted under 11 of the Act for wilfully failing and refusing to submit to induction. He sought to defend on the ground that as a Jehovah's Witness he was a minister of religion and that he had been improperly denied exemption from service, because the classifying agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to classify him as IV-D.

References

1. 327 U.S. 114 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.