Sundstrom v. United States

Background

A man ordered by his local Selective Service board was told to report for a pre-induction physical in May 1970. He arrived wearing a black robe and death-like makeup and was turned away without a physical. A second appointment notice did not reach him because he was traveling without a forwarding address. The board then used a new regulation to issue an induction order even though he had not completed a physical. He returned the induction orders and wrote letters saying he believed the orders were sent in error, but the board did not reply. He was prosecuted and convicted for failing to report for induction.

Reasoning

The main question before the Justices was whether to review the conviction and the board’s conduct. The Court declined to take the case and left the lower-court result in place. Justice Douglas dissented, arguing that the Government should not prosecute a person who reasonably misunderstood the induction rules where the local board had clear evidence of that misunderstanding. He said fairness and due process require the Government to correct a registrant’s evident mistake about new regulations before treating the omission as a knowing crime.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the conviction remains in force and the broader question of when the Government must inform registrants was not resolved by this Court. The decision shows that, absent a ruling like Douglas’s, registrants who miss induction may still face prosecution despite claiming lack of clear notice. This denial was not a final judgment on the legal duty to notify and the issue could arise again.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas would have required the Government to inform the registrant and would have barred prosecution under these facts. The dissent also notes that in May 1972 the Selective Service later directed local boards to notify registrants by letter about missed physicals and possible induction.