Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Seeger

Supreme Court of the United States · 1965 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawConscientious ObjectionStatutory InterpretationReligious Freedom§ 6(j)conscientious objectorreligious training and beliefSupreme Being

Facts

Seeger, Jakobson, and Peter each claimed conscientious objector status under § 6(j) based on sincerely held opposition to war, but each expressed his beliefs in nontraditional terms rather than in conventional theistic language. Seeger's claim was denied solely because he would not affirm belief in a Supreme Being as commonly understood, despite findings that he was sincere and acted in good faith. Jakobson described his beliefs in terms of "Supreme Reality" and "Godness," while Peter described a power manifest in nature and said those beliefs could be called belief in God or a Supreme Being even though he did not use those words. Each was convicted for refusing induction, and the lower courts reached differing results on whether their beliefs fell within the statute.

Issue

Whether § 6(j)'s exemption for persons opposed to war by reason of "religious training and belief," defined as belief in a relation to a "Supreme Being," includes sincerely held nontraditional religious beliefs that do not fit orthodox conceptions of God. Also, whether these respondents' beliefs were excluded as merely political, philosophical, sociological, or personal moral views.

Rule

Under § 6(j), the test is whether a claimed belief is sincere and meaningful and occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. The phrase "Supreme Being" was used to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, while the "merely personal moral code" exception is narrow and applies only where the moral code is the sole basis of the belief and is in no way related to a Supreme Being.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Evan Morales, a registrant in Columbus, Ohio, applies for conscientious objector status. He writes that he rejects the word "God," but believes there is an ultimate spiritual reality on which all life depends, and that this conviction imposes a duty never to participate in war; the file contains strong evidence that he has held this view consistently for years.

Under the majority's interpretation of § 6(j), is Evan's claim most likely within the statute?

Explanation. The majority construed "Supreme Being" broadly. The proper test is whether the claimant's belief is sincere and meaningful and occupies in his life a place parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one clearly entitled to the exemption. Congress did not require conventional wording or membership in a sect, and the Court rejected a narrow reading tied to orthodox theism.