Mitchell v. United States

1967-06-05

Headline: Court declines to review a draft resister’s treaty-based challenge that the Vietnam war was an illegal war of aggression, leaving his conviction for failing to report in place and affecting similar draftees.

Holding: The Court refused to take up the case and left the lower-court conviction and sentence in place without deciding the treaty-based defense questions.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the draft resister's conviction and five-year prison sentence intact.
Prevents immediate court review of treaty-based claims against serving in Vietnam.
Keeps unresolved whether international treaties can excuse or mitigate military service obligations.

Topics: draft resistance, Vietnam War, international treaties, military service, Selective Service

Summary

Background

A man ordered to report for military induction did not report, was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison, and his conviction was affirmed by the appeals court. He argued that the fighting in Vietnam was a "war of aggression" under the Treaty of London (August 8, 1945). He relied on Article 6(a), which calls waging an aggressive war a crime, and Article 8, which says following orders does not automatically excuse responsibility but may reduce punishment. The trial judge told the jury that the treaty did not prevent the defendant from having to obey his induction order.

Reasoning

The core questions were whether the Treaty of London counts as a treaty under the Constitution, whether the issue of an "aggressive war" can be decided in this criminal case, whether the Vietnam episode qualifies as a "war" under the treaty, whether the man could raise the question, and whether the treaty could be used as a defense or to reduce punishment. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the lower-court conviction and sentence in place and not resolving those treaty questions on the merits.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the man’s conviction stands and similar defendants currently challenging military service on treaty grounds remain without a Supreme Court ruling. The important legal questions about treaties and draft obligations therefore remain unresolved and may continue to recur in Selective Service cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented from the denial of review and argued these sensitive issues should be answered, citing the treaty text and constitutional duties of judges to follow treaties.