Johnson v. Robison
415 U.S. 361 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute denying educational benefits to conscientious objectors who performed alternative civilian service, while granting them to veterans who served on active duty, does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause if the classification is rationally related to legitimate government purposes.
Facts:
- Robison, based on his religious training and belief, was classified as a conscientious objector (Class 1-O) by his Selective Service Board.
- In lieu of military induction, Robison was ordered to perform two years of alternative civilian service.
- Robison satisfactorily completed his two years of service at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston.
- After completing his service, Robison applied to the Veterans' Administration (VA) for educational assistance under the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966.
- The VA denied Robison's application on the grounds that he did not qualify as an "eligible veteran" because he had not served on "active duty" in the Armed Forces as required by the statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Robison filed a class-action lawsuit against the Veterans' Administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- Robison sought a declaratory judgment that the relevant statutes violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The Veterans' Administration (appellants) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a statute, 38 U.S.C. § 211(a), which prohibits judicial review of the Administrator's decisions.
- The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding it had jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the statute.
- On the merits, the District Court ruled against Robison's First Amendment claim but held that the statutes violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
- The Veterans' Administration filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory scheme of the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act, which denies educational benefits to conscientious objectors who complete alternative civilian service while granting them to veterans who serve on active duty, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, the statutory scheme does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The classification limiting educational benefits to veterans who served on active duty is rationally related to the statute's legitimate legislative purposes. First, the court held that the no-review clause, 38 U.S.C. § 211(a), does not bar judicial review of constitutional challenges to the veterans' benefits legislation itself, only review of the Administrator's decisions in applying the statute. On the merits, applying rational basis review, the Court found the classification constitutional because it rationally furthered Congress's express objectives. The stated purposes were to enhance military service and to help veterans readjust to civilian life. The Court found significant quantitative and qualitative differences between military service and alternative civilian service; military service involves a longer commitment, a far greater loss of personal freedom, and subjection to military discipline and hazards. Furthermore, offering benefits makes military service more attractive, an objective not furthered by extending them to those who object to military service on principle. The law's incidental burden on religion is justified by the government's substantial interest in raising and supporting armies.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the statutory scheme violates the Constitution. Denying educational benefits to conscientious objectors imposes an unconstitutional penalty on the free exercise of their religion. Citing Sherbert v. Verner, the dissent argued that the government is putting a price on religious scruples by forcing a choice between adhering to one's faith and receiving a government benefit. The majority's distinction regarding the disruptiveness of service is unpersuasive, as many veterans who performed safe, civilian-type duties receive full benefits. The law's clear line is drawn not on the basis of hardship, but between those with religious objections to war and all others, which constitutes invidious discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of statutory clauses that prohibit judicial review of administrative agency decisions, establishing that such clauses generally do not prevent federal courts from hearing constitutional challenges to the underlying statutes. On the merits, the case reinforces the judiciary's deference to Congress under rational basis review, particularly concerning legislation related to military affairs and government benefits. By framing the denial of benefits as an 'incidental burden' rather than a direct penalty on religion, the Court narrowed the application of the Free Exercise Clause in cases involving neutral, secular government programs, making it more difficult to challenge such laws on religious grounds unless they can be shown to be a direct and substantial infringement.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Robison