United States v. Seeger (1965)

Summary

During the Vietnam War, Daniel Andrew Seeger, a pacifist, refused to sign up for the military draft.  Under federal law, individuals could claim exemption from military service based on their religious beliefs.  The government denied Seeger’s request because he was agnostic.  In response, Seeger argued that requiring a belief in God for exemption status was unconstitutional. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal law defining the scope of the rights of conscientious objectors.  However, the Court also read those rights broadly—affirming that exemptions from military service could be granted to individuals like Seeger even if their beliefs did not involve “a Supreme Being."

Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Tom Clark

These cases involve claims of conscientious objectors under § 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, . . . which exempts from combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States those persons who by reason of their religious training and belief are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form. . . . The parties raise the basic question of the constitutionality of the section which defines the term ‘religious training and belief,’ as used in the Act, as ‘an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but (not including) essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.’ The constitutional attack is launched under the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and is twofold: (1) The section does not exempt nonreligious conscientious objectors; and (2) it discriminates between different forms of religious expression . . . .

We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression ‘Supreme Being’ rather than the designation ‘God,’ was merely clarifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. We believe that under this construction, the test of belief ‘in a relation to a Supreme Being’ is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is ‘in a relation to a Supreme Being’ and the other is not. We have concluded that the beliefs of the objectors in these cases meet these criteria . . . .

Seeger was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of New York of having refused to submit to induction in the armed forces. . . . He first claimed exemption as a conscientious objector in 1957 . . . . Although he did not adopt verbatim the printed Selective Service System form, he declared that he was conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form by reason of his ‘religious’ belief; that he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open, rather than answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’; that his ‘skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God’ did ‘not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever’; that his was a ‘belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed.’ . . . He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity ‘without belief in God, except in the remotest sense.’ . . . His belief was found to be sincere, honest, and made in good faith; and his conscientious objection to be based upon individual training and belief, both of which included research in religious and cultural fields. Seeger’s claim, however, was denied solely because it was not based upon a ‘belief in a relation to a Supreme Being’ as required by § 6(j) of the Act. At trial Seeger’s counsel admitted that Seeger’s belief was not in relation to a Supreme Being as commonly understood, but contended that he was entitled to the exemption because ‘under the present law Mr. Seeger’s position would also include definitions of religion which have been stated more recently,’ . . . and could be ‘accommodated’ under the definition of religious training and belief in the Act . . . . He was convicted . . . .

Chief Justice Hughes . . . enunciated the rationale behind the long recognition of conscientious objection to participation in war accorded by Congress in our various conscription laws when he declared that ‘in the forum of conscience, duty to a moral power higher than the state has always been maintained.’ . . . In a similar vein, Harlan Fiske Stone, later Chief Justice, drew from the Nation’s past when he declared that ‘both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man’s moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process.’ . . . 

Governmental recognition of the moral dilemma posed for persons of certain religious faiths by the call to arms came early in the history of this country. Various methods of ameliorating their difficulty were adopted by the Colonies, and were later perpetuated in state statutes and constitutions. Thus by the time of the Civil War there existed a state pattern of exempting conscientious objectors on religious grounds. . . .

[In the current case,] [t]he crux of the problem lies in the phrase ‘religious training and belief’ which Congress has defined as ‘belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.’ In assigning meaning to this statutory language we may narrow the inquiry by noting briefly those scruples expressly excepted from the definition. The section excludes those persons who, disavowing religious belief, decide on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations that war is wrong and that they will have no part of it. These judgments have historically been reserved for the Government, and in matters which can be said to fall within these areas the conviction of the individual has never been permitted to override that of the state. . . . The statute further excludes those whose opposition to war stems from a ‘merely personal moral code’ . . . . We also pause to take note of what is not involved in this litigation. No party claims to be an atheist or attacks the statute on this ground. The question is not, therefore, one between theistic and atheistic beliefs. We do not deal with or intimate any decision on that situation in these cases. . . .

Few would quarrel, we think, with the proposition that in no field of human endeavor has the tool of language proved so inadequate in the communication of ideas as it has in dealing with the fundamental questions of man’s predicament in life, in death or in final judgment and retribution. This fact makes the task of discerning the intent of Congress in using the phrase ‘Supreme Being’ a complex one. Nor is it made the easier by the richness and variety of spiritual life in our country. Over 250 sects inhabit our land. Some believe in a purely personal God, some in a supernatural deity; others think of religion as a way of life envisioning as its ultimate goal the day when all men can live together in perfect understanding and peace. There are those who think of God as the depth of our being; others, such as the Buddhists, strive for a state of lasting rest through self-denial and inner purification; in Hindu philosophy, the Supreme Being is the transcendental reality which is truth, knowledge and bliss. . . . This vast panoply of beliefs reveals the magnitude of the problem which faced the Congress when it set about providing an exemption from armed service. It also emphasizes the care that Congress realized was necessary in the fashioning of an exemption which would be in keeping with its long-established policy of not picking and choosing among religious beliefs. . . .

Admittedly, all of the parties here purport to base their objection on religious belief. . . . Under the 1940 Act it was necessary only to have a conviction based upon religious training and belief; we believe that is all that is required here. Within that phrase would come all sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. The test might be stated in these words: A sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition. This construction avoids imputing to Congress an intent to classify different religious beliefs, exempting some and excluding others, and is in accord with the well-established congressional policy of equal treatment for those whose opposition to service is grounded in their religious tenets. . . . 

[The relevant law] continues the congressional policy of providing exemption from military service for those whose opposition is based on grounds that can fairly be said to be ‘religious.’ To hold otherwise would not only fly in the face of Congress’ entire action in the past; it would ignore the historic position of our country on this issue since its founding. . . .

We recognize the difficulties that have always faced the trier of fact in these cases. We hope that the test that we lay down proves less onerous. The examiner is furnished a standard that permits consideration of criteria with which he has had considerable experience. While the applicant’s words may differ, the test is simple of application. It is essentially an objective one, namely, does the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption?

Moreover, it must be remembered that in resolving these exemption problems one deals with the beliefs of different individuals who will articulate them in a multitude of ways. In such an intensely personal area, of course, the claim of the registrant that his belief is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight. . . .
 
The validity of what he believes cannot be questioned. Some theologians, and indeed some examiners, might be tempted to question the existence of the registrant’s ‘Supreme Being’ or the truth of his concepts. But these are inquiries foreclosed to Government. As Mr. Justice Douglas stated [in a previous case]: ‘Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others.’ Local boards and courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them ‘incomprehensible.’ Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.

But we hasten to emphasize that while the ‘truth’ of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question whether it is ‘truly held.’ This is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case. It is, of course, a question of fact—a prime consideration to the validity of every claim for exemption as a conscientious objector. . . . 

[T]he statutory definition excepts those registrants whose beliefs are based on a ‘merely personal moral code.’ The records in these cases, however, show that at no time did any one of the applicants suggest that his objection was based on a ‘merely personal moral code.’ Indeed at the outset each of them claimed in his application that his objection was based on a religious belief. We have construed the statutory definition broadly and it follows that any exception to it must be interpreted narrowly. The use by Congress of the words ‘merely personal’ seems to us to restrict the exception to a moral code which is not only personal but which is the sole basis for the registrant’s belief and is in no way related to a Supreme Being. It follows, therefore, that if the claimed religious beliefs of the respective registrants in these cases meet the test that we lay down then their objections cannot be based on a ‘merely personal’ moral code.

In summary, Seeger professed ‘religious belief’ and ‘religious faith.’ He did not disavow any belief ‘in a relation to a Supreme Being’; indeed he stated that ‘the cosmic order does, perhaps, suggest a creative intelligence.’ He decried the tremendous ‘spiritual’ price man must pay for his willingness to destroy human life. In light of his beliefs and the unquestioned sincerity with which he held them, we think the Board, had it applied the test we propose today, would have granted him the exemption. We think it clear that the beliefs which prompted his objection occupy the same place in his life as the belief in a traditional deity holds in the lives of his friends, the Quakers. . . .

It may be that Seeger did not clearly demonstrate what his beliefs were with regard to the usual understanding of the term ‘Supreme Being.’ But as we have said Congress did not intend that to be the test. . . .

Read the Full Opinion