## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted James St. Clair for violating the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.
- The indictment alleged St. Clair failed to comply with Selective Service requirements, including failing to register as required of men.
- St. Clair moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(4) for a jury hearing to present evidence that conscription was “unnecessary” because the armed forces could be staffed through an all-volunteer system.
- St. Clair also moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds, arguing compulsory service amounted to involuntary servitude barred by the Thirteenth Amendment.
- St. Clair further argued the Act violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee because it required men, but not women, to register, which he characterized as unfair sex-based discrimination.
- In addition, St. Clair argued that U.S. participation in the Vietnam War violated domestic and international law and that this illegality should bar enforcement of draft obligations in his prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with Selective Service violations is entitled to a jury hearing to litigate whether the draft is “unnecessary” as a matter of military policy.
2. Whether the Military Selective Service Act’s compulsory service and registration requirements violate the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude.
3. Whether limiting draft registration obligations to men, and exempting women, violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee as unconstitutional sex discrimination.
4. Whether alleged illegality of U.S. participation in the Vietnam War under domestic or international law provides a defense to Selective Service violations or requires dismissal of the indictment.

## Decision

- The court denied St. Clair’s motion for a jury hearing on the claimed “unnecessariness” of conscription.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held that Congress’s decision to use conscription rather than an all-volunteer force is a legislative policy judgment and not a factual matter for a jury in a criminal prosecution.
- The court rejected the Thirteenth Amendment challenge, relying on controlling precedent sustaining conscription as constitutional.
- The court rejected the Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination challenge, holding the male-only registration requirement was not unconstitutional under the due process standard applied.
- The court held that disputes over the legality of the Vietnam War did not invalidate the Selective Service Act and did not provide a defense to noncompliance with Selective Service requirements.

## Legal Principles

- The wisdom, need, and design of a draft system are for Congress to decide under its Article I power to raise and support armies; those questions are not tried to a jury in an individual draft prosecution.
- Evidence that an all-volunteer force could meet military manpower needs is not a defense to charges that a defendant failed to perform statutory Selective Service duties.
- Conscription and related registration duties do not constitute involuntary servitude within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment, given longstanding Supreme Court approval of the draft.
- Congress may draw classifications in administering military manpower, and (at the time) a male-only registration obligation was not treated as forbidden “invidious” discrimination under the Fifth Amendment’s due process component.
- A defendant generally may not defend a draft-law prosecution by attacking the legality of a particular military conflict; compliance with duly enacted Selective Service obligations is not conditioned on adjudicating the war’s legality.

## Conclusion

United States v. St. Clair held that a draft-law prosecution could proceed without a jury inquiry into whether conscription was necessary, and the district court refused to dismiss the indictment based on Thirteenth Amendment involuntary-servitude claims, Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination arguments arising from male-only registration, or claims that the Vietnam War’s alleged illegality excused compliance with the Selective Service Act.


United States v. St. Clair, 291 F. Supp. 122 (1968)