Pomorski v. United States, 12337.

Decision Date28 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 12337.,12337.
CitationPomorski v. United States, 222 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1955)
PartiesThomas Walter POMORSKI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Irving H. Smith, Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.

Wendell A. Miles, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich. (Roman J. Snow, Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, classified under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 451-470, in Class I-O as a conscientious objector, was convicted in the district court, 125 F. Supp. 68, of violating the Act in failing to report for work at the Northville State Hospital in Michigan as ordered by his local draft board. Section 456(j) of the Act provides in part that if a conscientious objector is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in noncombatant service with the Armed Forces, he shall, in lieu of induction into the Armed Forces "be ordered by his local board, subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe, to perform for a period equal to the period prescribed in section 4(b) such civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest as the local board may deem appropriate * * *."

Section 1660.1 of the Selective Service Regulations, promulgated by Presidential Executive Order, lists the types of employment which may be considered as appropriate to be performed under the foregoing statutory provision as "civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest." It includes "employment by the United States Government, or by a State, Territory or Possession of the United States, or by a political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia."

Appellant argues that the order to perform work in a state institution, and the regulations permitting such an order, are in conflict with the statute because such work does not contribute to the "national health, safety, or interest." He alternatively argues that if the statute be interpreted to permit the local board to order him to perform civilian services for a state institution, it violates the Thirteenth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

The record shows that the Northville State Hospital is a mental hospital, caring for members of the public in need of its services, including veterans whose cost of hospitalization is in part defrayed...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • United States v. Thorn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • September 14, 1970
    ...well-established in other Circuits; see, e. g., United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110, 112 (1st Cir. 1969); Pomorski v. United States, 222 F.2d 106, 107 (6th Cir. 1955); United States v. Fallon, 407 F.2d 621, 622 (7th Cir. 1969); Loewing v. United States, 392 F.2d 218, 219 (10th Cir. 1968......
  • Bohnert v. Faulkner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 16, 1971
    ...compare Keefer v. United States, 313 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Pomorski, 125 F.Supp. 68 (W.D.Mich.1954), aff'd, 222 F.2d 106 (6th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 841, 76 S.Ct. 81, 100 L.Ed. 750 (1955); United States v. Ruppell, 278 F. Supp. 287 (E.D.N.Y.1968); United Sta......
  • United States v. Hoepker, 11336
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 14, 1955
    ...several states and their subdivisions, and has been unanimously rejected. United States v. Pomorski, D.C., 125 F. Supp. 68, affirmed 6 Cir., 222 F.2d 106; United States v. Niles, D.C., 122 F.Supp. 382, affirmed 9 Cir., 220 F.2d 278; United States v. Sutter, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 109; United Sta......
  • United States v. Capehart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • May 29, 1956
    ...Board requiring the defendant to report for work was clearly within the language of the statute and the regulations. Pormorski v. United States, 6 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 106, certiorari denied 1955, 350 U. S. 841, 76 S.Ct. The facts are clear that the defendant appeared at the Hospital to whi......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Mark L. Rienzi, the Constitutional Right Not to Kill
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 62-1, 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...is an act of legislative grace, for no one has a constitutional right to exemption from military service.”); Pomorski v. United States, 222 F.2d 106, 107 (6th Cir. 1955) (per curiam) (“It is not the Constitution but Congressional policy which relieves the conscientious objector from the dut......