Facts of the Case
Seeger was convicted for refusing to be inducted into the armed forces. He argued that he was subject to the exemption under Section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which provides that conscientious objectors need not serve in the armed forces if they have a specific religious training or belief that is related to a Supreme Being. Seeger was a genuine pacifist who made his objection in good faith, but he was denied the exemption because he did not believe in a Supreme Being, since he was agnostic about the existence of God. On the other hand, the root of his objection was based on religious study and faith rather than his personal morals. He argued that the provision containing the exemption was unconstitutional because it required proof of a belief in a Supreme Being.
Questions
Was the exemption provision unconstitutional for requiring proof of a Supreme Being?
Conclusions
-
A person can have conscientious objector status based on a belief that has a similar position in that person's life to the belief in God.
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clark, the Court ruled that the statute was constitutional. Since there are over 250 religious groups in the United States, the Court reasoned, Congress could not be expected to specifically cover each of them in this federal law. In general, a conscientious objection is based on a religious belief rather than political, sociological, or philosophical views. The term "Supreme Being" should be interpreted to cover all types of faith, and the defendant's belief system fell within them, so it qualified for the exemption. However, the statute was held to be constitutional on its face.
Justice Douglas concurred.