UNITED STATES MAURO v. Downer
| Decision Date | 15 May 1943 |
| Citation | 50 F. Supp. 412 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. MAURO v. DOWNER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Abraham Franzblau, of Ozone Park, L. I., N. Y., for petitioner.
Harold M. Kennedy, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Frank J. Parker, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for respondent.
This is a hearing on a writ of habeas corpus. The relator seeks his discharge upon the ground that his induction was the result of arbitrary action and decision by the local board of the Selective Service System, unsupported by any evidence or any substantial evidence, and as a result of the failure of the local board to accord him a full and fair hearing. It appears that on April 29, 1942, the relator applied to the local board for a deferment from induction on the ground that he had learned two days previously that his wife was pregnant.
Congress has selected a democratic method for selecting persons for the Armed Service by authorizing the selection of a local board, consisting of citizens of the United States, resident of the locality, and under the law a local board is required to hold a fair and impartial hearing, and to receive and consider all proper evidence concerning the proposed inductee. The local board must be fair in its consideration of the evidence and must receive all material evidence offered. To do otherwise would be a denial of the right of an inductee, and if such person were inducted he would be entitled to a discharge by habeas corpus. The local board cannot act in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Its decisions must be based upon evidence.
Under the system as devised by Congress the Court has no reviewing power over the acts of the local board. Another procedure has been set up. It is only in cases where after induction it appears that the local board has acted in a capricious or arbitrary manner or failed to grant a proper hearing, or based its decision upon guess, surmise, speculation and not evidence that the Court may discharge the inductee upon the ground that he has been illegally restrained from his liberties. A local board in a proper case may defer an inductee upon the ground that his wife is pregnant, and may defer his induction for a reasonable period where his induction may result in great hardship. These matters of necessity must be left to the wisdom and discretion of the Board.
Dealing with the question of the charge made by the relator that he did not receive a fair hearing and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Estep, 8810.
...Conn., 1943, 54 F.Supp. 889, affirmed 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 62; Micheli v. Paullin, D.C.N.J. 1943, 45 F.Supp. 687; United States ex rel. Mauro v. Downer, D.C.N.Y., 1943, 50 F. Supp. 412; In re Rogers, D.C.Tex., 1942, 47 F.Supp. 265. Both as a matter of broad principle and actual application habe......
-
United States v. COMMANDING OFFICER, ETC.
...590; United States ex rel. Beers v. Selective Training & Service Local Board, D.C. Wis., 50 F.Supp. 39, 40; United States ex rel. Mauro v. Downer, D.C.N.Y., 50 F. Supp. 412, 413. In a similar situation, under the comparable Selective Draft Act of 1917, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 201 et seq., ju......
-
Lee v. City of El Campo, Tex.
... ... were attacked, but which reached the Supreme Court of the United States through the State Court. Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 497, 528, 59 ... ...