Martin v. United States, 6293.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1951
• Docket Number: No. 6293.,6293.
• Parties: MARTIN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

190 F.2d 775 (1951)

MARTIN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6293.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 11, 1951.

Decided July 20, 1951.

Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.

R. Roy Rush, Asst. U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va. (Howard C. Gilmer, Jr., U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal in a criminal case. Appellant was indicted for refusing to be inducted into the military service in violation of the provisions of the Selective Service Act of 1948, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq. A jury trial was waived and the case was heard by the District Judge, who found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. No question is made as to the appellant's refusal to be inducted. His defense in the court below and here is that he was improperly denied classification as a minister of religion by the draft board and that he was denied due process of law by the board in that it failed to accord him rights to which he was entitled under selective service regulations. We agree with the court below that the record does not sustain either defense.

As to appellant's classification, it appears that he reported to the draft board that he was 21 years of age and was employed by the Norfolk and Western Railway Company as a laborer working forty-eight hours per week, and in the court below he testified that he was working forty hours a week for the railway company at that time. His claim that he is a minister of religion is based upon the fact that he is a member of the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses and has been appointed by officials of that sect as a full time minister or pioneer, and as such distributes literature and visits in the homes of persons for religious purposes when not on duty at his job with the railroad and has held a few public meetings. Since all members of Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be ministers of religion, the duty devolves upon the draft board of deciding whether one claiming exemption on that ground is in reality a minister of religion within the meaning of the Selective Service Act; and we cannot say that there is no reasonable basis for the action of the board in refusing such classification here. The courts are given no power of review over the draft boards. If there is a substantial basis for the order, it must be sustained. Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442, 448-452, 68 S.Ct. 115, 92 L.Ed. 59; Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 122-123, 66 S.Ct. 423, 427, 90 L.Ed. 567. As said in the case last cited: "The provision making the decisions of the local boards `final' means to us that Congress chose not to give administrative action under this Act the customary scope of judicial review which obtains under other statutes. It means that the courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by the local boards was justified. The decisions of the local boards made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant. See Goff v. United States, 4 Cir., 135 F.2d 610, 612."

The case of Goff v. United States, 4 Cir., 135 F.2d 610, 612, cited by the Supreme Court in the passage quoted is a decision of this court wherein we said with respect to the power to hold the order of the draft board invalid: "This does not mean that the court in a criminal proceeding may review the action of the board. That action is to be taken as final, notwithstanding errors of fact or law, so long as the board's jurisdiction is not transcended and its action is not so arbitrary and unreasonable as to the amount to a denial of constitutional right."

The contention, pressed here with much fervor, that appellant must be accorded the status of a minister of religion because so designated by the religious sect of which he is a member, was met and answered in Cox v. United States, supra, Swaczyk v. United States, 1 Cir., 156 F.2d 17, and Rase v. United States, 6 Cir., 129 F.2d 204, 209. Nothing need be added to what was said by Judge Simons in the case last cited, as follows: "The phrase `minister of religion' as used in the Act is to be interpreted according to the intention of the Congress, and not by the meaning attached to it by the members of any particular group. Congress undoubtedly intended to exempt such persons as stand in the same relationship to the religious organizations of which they are members, as do regularly ordained ministers of older and better known religious denominations. This is borne out by the provision for the exempting of theological or divinity students. If we understand the appellant's argument, every member of his sect is a minister of religion and so entitled to exemption. No differentiation is to be recognized between shepherd and flock or between pastor and congregants. Followed to its logical conclusion, this would mean that all of the members of any religious group which imposes upon its adherents an obligation to teach and preach its beliefs or to make converts, are exempted under the Selective Service Act without regard to whether such activity constitutes their sole or principal vocation. It is inconceivable that it was the intention of the Congress to incorporate in the Act an exemption so broad and all-embracing. The statutory exemption must be applied in consonance with the clearly apparent purpose of the Congress, and not in response to the interpretation placed upon it by particular religious groups or their adherents."

There is nothing in the record to justify any contention that the board acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or otherwise abused its discretion in denying appellant's claim to ministerial status under the Act.

And we do not think that there is validity in the contention that appellant has been denied due process of law or rights given him under the Selective Service Regulations. 1624.2, 32 C.F.R. (1949 ed.) p. 802...