## Facts

- McGee, a Selective Service registrant, sought conscientious objector (CO) status while holding a student deferment.
- The local board stated it would consider the CO claim after the student deferment ended.
- The board later learned McGee had been accepted into a graduate program; McGee believed he might qualify for a ministerial student exemption but never submitted a formal request or supporting materials.
- After graduation, the board sent a current information questionnaire; McGee refused to complete it and stated he would no longer cooperate with the Selective Service System.
- The local board reclassified McGee as I-A (available for military service).
- McGee did not request a personal appearance before the local board and did not file an administrative appeal of the I-A classification, despite having those options.
- McGee refused induction and was convicted in federal court for failure to submit to induction and related violations of the Military Selective Service Act.
- In the criminal case, McGee argued his I-A classification was unlawful because the board mishandled his CO and ministerial-exemption claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a registrant who fails to use available Selective Service procedures (personal appearance and administrative appeal) may, in a later criminal prosecution for refusing induction, defend by asserting that the local board erroneously classified him.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice Marshall.
- The Court held that McGee’s failure to exhaust available Selective Service administrative remedies barred him from asserting erroneous classification as a defense in his criminal prosecution.
- The Court distinguished prior precedent permitting a collateral challenge without exhaustion where the issue was largely legal and administrative review added little.

## Legal Principles

- Exhaustion of administrative remedies may be required before a registrant may challenge a Selective Service classification as a defense to a criminal prosecution.
- When exemption claims depend on factual development, credibility assessment, and agency evaluation (such as CO or ministerial claims), the registrant must first pursue administrative review mechanisms provided by the Selective Service System.
- A registrant’s refusal to cooperate with the administrative process can justify applying exhaustion to protect the agency’s fact-finding role and prevent criminal trials from becoming de novo classification proceedings.
- Failure to exhaust may be excused in limited circumstances, but not where administrative procedures could materially assist in resolving fact-bound classification questions.

## Conclusion

Because McGee declined to participate in available Selective Service procedures that could have developed and tested his fact-dependent exemption claims, he could not later collaterally attack his I-A classification as a defense to prosecution for refusing induction.


McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479 (1971)