Significance: This case helped to establish the right to refuse the wartime draft on moral grounds. The Supreme Court ruled that objecting to a war because of deeply felt moral grounds was as legitimate as an objection based on religious grounds.
Background: Upon being called up for the military draft, Elliott Ashton Welsh sought to avoid service on the grounds that he morally objected to the Vietnam War. While awaiting a decision on his status, he refused to be drafted. Legal provisions existed for men to refuse to be drafted because of religious reasons, but not for purely moral reasons. Because Welsh was deeply opposed to war but did not hold specific religious beliefs against it, his request was refused. He was convicted in 1966 for avoiding the draft. Welsh appealed the decision, arguing that the language of the draft law violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by favoring those with religious beliefs over those with similarly deep nonreligious beliefs.
Decision: This case was argued on January 20, 1970, and decided on June 15, 1970. Justice Hugo Black spoke for the unanimous Court, which ruled in favor of Welsh. The Court based its decision on an earlier case, United States v. Seeger, which set the precedent of allowing exemption from the draft for those opposed to war because of religious training and beliefs. The Court judged that Welsh’s beliefs were identical to those of Seeger, except that Welsh’s opposition to war did not stem from a religious devotion. Therefore, to deny Welsh the same benefit that the Court had given Seeger would be to favor religion over nonreligion, which the Court judged was a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Excerpt from the Opinion of the Court: “Both Seeger and Welsh affirmed . . . that they held deep conscientious scruples [moral convictions] against taking part in wars where people were killed. Both strongly believed that killing in war was wrong, unethical, and immoral, and their consciences forbade them to take part in such an evil practice. Their objection to participating in war in any form could not be said to come from a ‘still, small voice of conscience’; rather, for them that voice was so loud and insistent that both men preferred to go to jail rather than serve in the Armed Forces.”
