McGee v. United States

Background

A man who had been a college student and later a theological student applied for a conscientious-objector exemption by submitting the special form and other written material to his local Selective Service board. The board kept him on student deferment, later rejected the conscientious-objector claim after he graduated, reclassified him as available for induction (I‑A), and notified him of his rights to a board interview and an administrative appeal. He refused to pursue those administrative steps, refused induction when ordered, was prosecuted on several draft-related charges, and was convicted.

Reasoning

The Court’s main question was whether a person who deliberately skips the Selective Service board’s procedures can still press a classification defense in court. The majority relied on earlier decisions and concluded that when a claim depends on factual findings—such as the nature and sincerity of religious or ministerial status—the administrative process must first have the chance to gather facts and apply its expertise. Because the man knowingly refused to seek a personal appearance or appeal, the Court held his failure to exhaust those remedies bars his claim that the board misclassified him, and the convictions were affirmed.

Real world impact

The ruling means people contesting draft classifications must use board interviews and appeals before asking a court to overturn a decision, especially when disputes turn on factual questions like sincerity or student status. The decision enforces the idea that administrative fact-finding is central in draft cases and warns against deliberately bypassing those procedures. This was a final ruling on the exhaustion issue in this criminal case.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the local board never actually considered the conscientious-objector claim, found the man sincere, and would have permitted court review; that Justice urged reversal because the board’s conduct made an appeal impossible.