Mulloy v. United States

Background

A 23-year-old man classified I-A wrote to his local draft board saying he had become a conscientious objector and opposing war. He completed the official conscientious-objection form and submitted supporting letters. The board gave him a short, courtesy interview but said it would not reopen his I-A classification. The board later mailed an order to report for induction, he refused to be inducted, and he was criminally convicted for that refusal.

Reasoning

The Court faced the question whether a local draft board must reopen a registrant’s classification when the registrant presents new facts that, if true, would justify a change to conscientious-objector status. The Court held that when a person makes a nonfrivolous, prima facie showing based on facts not previously considered, the board must reopen the case unless those facts are conclusively refuted by reliable information already in the file. Reopening triggers the right to a personal appearance and an administrative appeal. A board cannot avoid those protections by making an on-the-spot credibility or merits decision without first reopening.

Real world impact

The ruling protects people who claim sincere religious or moral opposition to war by ensuring a hearing and appeal before induction if they present a plausible new case. Draft boards still need not reopen obviously incredible claims or cases already conclusively refuted. Because the board here improperly refused to reopen, the Court reversed the man’s conviction and found the induction order invalid.