Decision Date09 August 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-1655,72-1760.,72-1655
PartiesHenry HERNANDEZ; Thomas J. Wolf; and the Class Represented, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. Peter MILLER and Gary Lehn, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION of the United States of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Jack R. Petranker, Lawrence L. Curtice (argued), Paul N. Halvonik, Charles C. Marson, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William G. Kanter (argued), Morton Hollander, Harlington Wood, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before: HAMLIN and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CRARY, District Judge.*


Plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of conscientious objectors who performed alternative civilian work after refusing to serve in the armed forces, appeal from a district court judgment dismissing an action in which they sought, on constitutional grounds, a judgment requiring the Veterans' Administration to furnish them certain veterans' benefits, including educational benefits, on an equal basis with persons who served on active duty in the armed forces.

The district court, 339 F.Supp. 913, 914 dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction, under 38 U.S.C. § 211(a)1 and Redfield v. Driver, 364 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1966). Accord, Ross v. United States, 462 F.2d 618 (9th Cir., 1972).

The appellants argued that 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) is unconstitutional. Assuming without deciding that the Veterans Administration might take an action so egregiously discriminatory and procedurally unfair as to require a judicial re-examination of the constitutionality of the quoted section, the facts alleged in the present case do not present a substantial basis for challenging the statute.


* The Honorable E. Avery Crary, United States District Judge for the Central District of California.

1 "On and after October 17, 1940, except as provided in sections 775, 784, and as to matters arising under chapter 37 of this title, the decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents or survivors shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Robison v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 72-434-G.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 4 Enero 1973
    ...nor any affirmative relief, see Hernandez v. Veterans Administration, N.D.Cal., 1972, 339 F. Supp. 913, 914, aff'd per curiam, 9 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 479,6 but rather a declaratory judgment that a "law being administered by the Veterans Administration" violates the Constitution of the Unite......
  • Cieliczka v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 15 Agosto 1973
    ...and procedurally unfair as to require a judicial re-examination of the constitutionality" of the statute. Hernandez v. Veterans Administration, 467 F.2d 479, 480 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. granted, 411 U.S. 981, 93 S.Ct. 2267, 36 L.Ed.2d 957 (1973). Given the previously uniform acceptance of th......
  • Hernandez v. Veterans Administration 8212 700
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 4 Marzo 1974
    ...of constitutional challenges to veterans' benefits legislation. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389. P. 393. 467 F.2d 479, vacated and Lawrence L. Curtice, San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation, San Francisco, Cal., and Jack R. Petranker, pro hac......
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 22 Abril 1974
    ...is affirmed for the reasons stated in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974). Hernandez v. Veterans' Administration, 467 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1972), insofar as it reads 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) as precluding judicial review when sought on constitutional grounds, is 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT