## Facts

- Guy Porter Gillette, a draft registrant, refused to report for induction because he opposed the Vietnam War as “unnecessary and unjust,” while not objecting to all wars.
- Gillette claimed his objection was based on religious belief, describing his views as “Humanism.”
- Louis Negre, an active-duty Roman Catholic servicemember, sought discharge after concluding that participation in the Vietnam conflict would violate his religious beliefs because he viewed it as an unjust war.
- Negre refused Vietnam deployment orders and was transported to Vietnam under compulsion.
- Both petitioners sought conscientious objector status only as to the Vietnam War, not “war in any form.”
- The relevant statute, § 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, exempted persons who, by reason of religious training and belief, are conscientiously opposed to participation in “war in any form.”
- Gillette was convicted for willful failure to report for induction; the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
- Negre was denied relief by the court of appeals; the cases were consolidated for Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether § 6(j)’s exemption for persons conscientiously opposed to participation in “war in any form” includes selective objectors who oppose only a particular war.
2. Whether limiting the exemption to those opposed to all wars violates the Establishment Clause by favoring certain religious doctrines.
3. Whether the limitation violates the Free Exercise Clause by burdening religiously motivated selective objections.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments against both petitioners by an 8–1 vote.
- The Court held that § 6(j) applies only to persons opposed to participation in all war, not to those who object only to a particular conflict.
- The Court held that this statutory limitation does not violate the Establishment Clause.
- The Court held that the limitation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause because any burden is incidental and justified by the government’s interests in an administrable and equitable conscription system.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 6(j), “conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form” means opposition to participation in all war; selective conscientious objection is excluded.
- A conscientious objector scheme does not violate the Establishment Clause where it is secular in purpose, evenhanded in operation, neutral in primary impact, and supported by neutral, nonreligious administrative reasons.
- A neutral statutory rule that incidentally burdens religious exercise may be upheld when justified by substantial governmental interests, including fair and workable administration of military conscription.
- Congress may limit conscientious objector exemptions to avoid requiring officials to assess the justice of particular wars and to reduce risks of inconsistent or discriminatory determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court construed the conscientious objector exemption to cover only those who oppose participation in all war and upheld that limitation against Establishment and Free Exercise challenges, emphasizing administrability and fairness in the draft and military personnel systems.


Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971)