United States v. Seeger
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 16–17, 1964
Decided March 8, 1965
Full case nameUnited States v. Daniel Andrew Seeger;
United States v. Arno Sascha Jakobson;
Forest Britt Peter v. United States
Citations380 U.S. 163 (more)
85 S. Ct. 850; 13 L. Ed. 2d 733; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1666
Case history
Prior
  • United States v. Seeger, 216 F. Supp. 516 (S.D.N.Y. 1963); reversed, 326 F.2d 846 (2d Cir. 1964); cert. granted, 377 U.S. 922 (1964).
  • United States v. Jakobson, 325 F.2d 409 (2d Cir. 1963); cert. granted, 377 U.S. 922 (1964).
  • Peter v. United States, 324 F.2d 173 (9th Cir. 1963); cert. granted, 377 U.S. 922 (1964).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
MajorityClark, joined by Warren, Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg
ConcurrenceDouglas

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could be reserved not only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption.[1]

The Court reasoned that "both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual" and that "liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state."[2] Additionally, that if this principle is violated to preserve the "life" of the state that it puts into question whether the state will lose its "life" as a result.

The case resolved, on diverse but related grounds, three cases, each involving conviction for failure to accept induction into the armed forces on the part of someone who sought conscientious-objector status without "belong[ing] to an orthodox religious sect". The accused, whose cases were otherwise unrelated, were Arno Sascha Jakobson, Forest Britt Peter, and Daniel Andrew Seeger; it was Seeger's case that gave its name to the multi-case decision. Archibald Cox, then Solicitor General, argued for the United States in every case.[1]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).
  2. ↑ "United States v. Seeger | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 2023-12-17.

Further reading

  • In stillness there is fullness: a peacemaker's harvest: essays and reflections in honor of Daniel A. Seeger's four decades of Quaker service; edited by Peter Bien and Chuck Fager, Belfonte, Pennsylvania, Kimo Press, ISBN 978-0-945177-17-3. This festschrift includes:
    • "Excerpts from and comments on a Thesis called 'The challenge to the Supreme Court of the case United States v. Seeger'" by Margery W. Rubin
    • "The Seeger decision" by L. William Yolton
    • "The Supreme Court decision"
  • Alley, Robert S. (1999). The Constitution & Religion: Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. pp. 454–465. ISBN 1-57392-703-1.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.