Petitioners, who were denied educational benefits under the
Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 because, as
conscientious objectors exempt from the military service who
performed alternative civilian service, they were ineligible for
such benefits, brought actions challenging the constitutionality,
on First and Fifth Amendment grounds, of the provisions of the Act
making them ineligible. The District Court dismissed the actions on
the grounds that jurisdiction was barred by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) and
petitioners' constitutional claims were insubstantial and without
merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of the
jurisdictional bar.
Held: Section 211(a) does not bar judicial
consideration of constitutional challenges to veterans' benefits
legislation.
Johnson v. Robison, ante, p.
415 U. S. 361. P.
415 U. S.
393.
467 F.2d 479, vacated and remanded.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and
REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a statement concurring
in the result,
post, p.
415 U. S.
393.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, like the appellee and his class in
Johnson v.
Robison, ante, p.
415 U. S. 361, are
Class I-O conscientious objectors
Page 415 U. S. 392
who, upon completion of alternative civilian service pursuant to
§ 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C.App. §
456(j), and the governing regulations of the Selective Service
System, 32 CFR, Part 1660, applied for educational benefits
provided by the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966. The
Veterans' Administration denied petitioners' application for the
reasons upon which appellee Robison's request was denied,
i.e., because a Class I-O conscientious objector who has
performed alternative civilian service does not qualify under 38
U.S.C. § 1652(a)(1) as a "veteran who . . . served on active duty"
(defined in 38 U.S.C. § 101 (21) as "full-time duty in the Armed
Forces"), and is therefore not an "eligible veteran" entitled under
38 U.S.C. § 1661(a) to veterans' educational benefits provided by
the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966.
Alleging that those sections of the 1966 Act discriminate
against conscientious objectors in violation of the Fifth
Amendment, and infringe the Religion Clauses of the First
Amendment, petitioners filed two actions seeking declaratory,
injunctive, and mandamus relief and requesting the convening of a
three-judge district court. The District Court consolidated the two
cases and granted the Government's motion to dismiss on the grounds
that
"plaintiffs' requests for affirmative relief are not within the
jurisdiction of this Court due to the mandate of 38 U.S.C. §
211(a). . . [and] the plaintiffs' challenge . . . based on alleged
violations of the Fifth and First Amendments to the United States
Constitution are [
sic] insubstantial and without
merit."
339 F.
Supp. 913, 916 (ND Cal.1972). Notwithstanding the District
Court's dismissal of petitioners' constitutional claims on the
ground of insubstantiality, the Court of Appeals, as we read that
court's opinion, construed the order of dismissal as based solely
upon the jurisdictional bar of 211(a), and affirmed
Page 415 U. S. 393
the District Court on that ground. 467 F.2d 479 (1972). We
granted certiorari and set the ease for oral argument with
Johnson v. Robison, ante, p.
415 U. S. 361. 411
U.S. 981 (1973).
We have held today in
Johnson v. Robison that § 211(a)
does not bar judicial consideration of constitutional challenges to
veterans' benefits legislation. Accordingly, the judgment of the
Court of Appeals is vacated and the case remanded for further
proceedings consistent with our opinion in
Johnson v.
Robison.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concurs in the result for the reasons stated
in his dissenting opinion in
Johnson v. Robison, ante, p.
415 U. S.
386.
