Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
PRYOR v. UNITED STATES, 1971 — 404 U.S. 1242 · caselaw · US
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
PRYOR v. UNITED STATES
404 U.S. 1242·Supreme Court of the United States·1971
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
PRYOR v. UNITED STATES
No. A-403.
Decided October 29, 1971
See: 448 F. 2d 1273.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Douglas,]
Mr. Justice Douglas,
Circuit Justice.
Applicant is a Jehovah’s Witness who was convicted for failing to report for civilian work in lieu of induction. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed his conviction, rejecting, inter alia, applicant’s argument that forced alternate service in the absence of a congressional declaration of war violated his rights under the First Amendment. He seeks a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals or, in the alternative, a continuation of bail pending disposition of his petition for certiorari.
I have expressed at length my view that the constitutional questions raised by conscription for a presidential war are justiciable, substantial, and should be reviewed by this Court. Hart v. United States, cert. denied, 391 U. S. 956 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Holmes v. United States, cert. denied, 391 U. S. 936 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Mr. Justice Brennan, this term, has also dissented from the denial of certiorari in cases raising this issue. See, e. g., Thompson v. United States, cert. denied, ante, p. 916; Gidmark v. United States, cert. denied, ante, p. 868. Mr. Justice Stewart has in the past indicated a willingness to consider aspects of the problem. Holmes v. United States, supra (Memorandum of Stewart, J.). There are now two vacant seats on the Court. Moreover, three out of seven are enough to grant a petition for certiorari.
In light of the foregoing, I no longer feel precluded, Drifka v. Brainard, 89 S. Ct. 434, 21 L. Ed. 2d 427, from granting such relief as is requested here. Bail will therefore be continued in the same amount and under, the same conditions as presently in effect, pending disposition of the petition for certiorari.
It is so ordered.