Lopez v. United States
Headline: Conscientious-objection appeal leads court to release man convicted for refusing induction, pausing custody while appeal proceeds and while courts consider a post-induction hearing.
Holding: The Court ordered Lopez released on his personal recognizance while his appeal about obtaining a post-induction conscientious objector hearing proceeds.
- Allows a convicted draftee to be released while an appeal over a post-induction hearing proceeds.
- Affects people whose conscientious-objection claims arise after receiving induction notices.
- Preserves the option to submit to induction to obtain an Army ruling later.
Summary
Background
Lopez, a man indicted and convicted for refusing military induction, said his conscientious-objection belief developed after he received his induction notice. At the time he got the notice, Ninth Circuit law did not permit filing a conscientious-objector application after an induction notice. Lopez received his notice on March 3, 1970, and failed to report on March 17, 1970. Army Regulation AR 635-20, ¶3(b), in effect then, said requests for discharge based only on objections not claimed before induction would not be favorably considered.
Reasoning
The central question was whether Lopez could obtain a post-induction hearing on his conscientious-objection claim and whether a court could allow him to be inducted and then have the Army decide the claim. The Court noted Ehlert v. United States held a post-induction hearing could satisfy the Selective Service Act, and Ehlert was decided after Lopez’s conviction. Justice Douglas found the procedural issue substantial and considered Lopez bailworthy because he had twice been released previously on his own recognizance. Because the appeal about the proper procedure was awaiting argument, the Justice ordered Lopez released on his personal recognizance pending that appeal.
Real world impact
This order lets a person in Lopez’s position be free while the appeals court decides whether he may be inducted and then obtain an Army ruling on his conscience claim. It preserves his practical ability to try to submit for induction to get the post-induction hearing. The ruling is not a final merits decision and could change after the appeals court rules.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?