McKart v. United States
395 U.S. 185 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is not to be applied inflexibly and does not bar a criminal defendant from challenging the validity of his Selective Service classification when the issue is one of pure statutory interpretation, does not require agency expertise, and applying the doctrine would be unduly harsh by stripping the defendant of his only defense.
Facts:
- Petitioner McKart's father was killed in action during World War II.
- McKart registered with his local Selective Service board and was initially classified I-A (available for service).
- After McKart provided more information, the board reclassified him IV-A, exempting him as the "sole surviving son."
- In early 1966, McKart's mother died.
- Following his mother's death, the local board reclassified McKart as I-A on the theory that his "family unit" had ceased to exist, thus ending his exemption.
- McKart did not appeal this reclassification within the Selective Service System's administrative process.
- McKart failed to report for a scheduled pre-induction physical examination.
- McKart subsequently received an order to report for induction and willfully and knowingly failed to report.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner McKart was indicted in a United States District Court for willfully failing to report for and submit to induction into the Armed Forces.
- At trial, the District Court held that McKart could not raise the defense that his classification was invalid because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies within the Selective Service System.
- McKart was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
- McKart, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction with one judge dissenting.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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 a Selective Service registrant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing his reclassification bar him from raising the invalidity of that classification as a defense in a criminal prosecution for failure to report for induction, where the classification involves a question of statutory interpretation rather than agency discretion?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No. A Selective Service registrant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not bar him from asserting the invalidity of his classification as a defense in a criminal prosecution where the issue is one of pure statutory interpretation and the interests underlying the exhaustion doctrine are not implicated. First, the Court determined that the local board erred in reclassifying McKart; the 'sole surviving son' exemption is not contingent on the continued existence of a family unit, as Congress had multiple purposes for the exemption, including the preservation of a male family line. Second, the Court held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should not be applied. The doctrine's purposes—allowing agency expertise, developing a factual record, and promoting judicial efficiency—are not served here. The question is solely one of statutory interpretation, which does not require agency expertise or discretion. Furthermore, applying the doctrine in a criminal case would be exceedingly harsh, as it would deprive McKart of his only defense. The risk of registrants deliberately bypassing the administrative process is low given the severe criminal penalties involved.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
No. The Selective Service Board acted in a 'lawless' manner by denying a clear statutory exemption, an error as egregious as the one in Oestereich v. Selective Service Board. When an agency's error is so clear and significant, it is a travesty of justice to require a registrant to pursue administrative remedies designed for discretionary or fact-based classifications. If pre-induction judicial review is available for such a clear statutory error, it follows a fortiori that the error can be raised as a defense in a criminal prosecution.
Concurring - Justice White
No. While concurring in the result, this opinion disagrees with the majority's broad conclusion that exhaustion is not required for questions of law, as agency expertise in statutory construction is valuable. The failure to exhaust should be excused here not on that broad ground, but on the narrower fact that McKart's case and the scope of the exemption did receive informal consideration from both the State and National Directors of the Selective Service System. This informal high-level review, which ratified the local board's erroneous position, is a sufficient justification to permit the courts to entertain McKart's defense in this specific instance without creating a sweeping exception to the exhaustion doctrine.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, establishing it as a flexible, prudential doctrine rather than an absolute jurisdictional bar. By creating an exception for criminal defendants where the issue is pure statutory interpretation, the Court balanced administrative efficiency against the fundamental rights of a criminal defendant. This decision limits an agency's ability to shield its legal errors from judicial review in criminal proceedings simply because a defendant failed to pursue an internal appeal. It forces courts to analyze the specific purposes of exhaustion in each case, rather than applying the rule automatically, particularly where agency discretion and expertise are not at issue and the consequences for the individual are severe.
Unlock the full brief for McKart v. United States