Anticipatory Attacks on Selective Service Classifications
Editors, · University of Pennsylvania Law Review · 1969
To the man registered with the Selective Service System, classification is of vital importance."Classification is the key to selection," 1 and registrants classified I-A are available to be selected for active service.A registrant may challenge his classification through an administrative procedure.His first option is to request a personal appearance before his local board2 If his plea is rejected here, he may seek review by a state appeal board. 4 If a member of this board dissents from the majority's action, the registrant may make a final appeal to the President of the United States.'Any further review must occur in the courts. I. HISTORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW BY ANTICIPATORY ATTACKJudicial review of draft board classifications has traditionally been sought in three types of suits: ' in a criminal prosecution for failure to obey an induction order, in a petition for habeas corpus brought after accepting induction, and in an anticipatory attack.The latter is a suit brought by a registrant before he has to make the choice of either violating his induction order or accepting induction.Although there are different types of anticipatory attacks," they have the same object: to secure a judicial determination that the registrant's classification is invalid.An anticipatory attack is the best form of judicial review from the registrant's point of view.If the registrant chooses to await criminal prosecution, he must risk a prison sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.'If he chooses a petition for habeas 132 C.F.R. § 1622.1(b) (1968).9 See note 92 infra and accompanying text.-0 Prior to the Second Circuit's decision in Wolff v. Selective Serv.Local Bd.No. 16, 372 F.2d 817 (1967), so few registrants bringing anticipatory attacks were successful that judicial review by means of anticipatory attack was called an exception to the rule allowing judicial review only as a defense to a criminal prosecution or in a petition for habeas corpus after induction.Compare the successful attacks of Townsend v.