Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealburden of proofcomplianceregulation
appeal

Related Cases

In re Guardianship of Styer, 24 Ariz.App. 148, 536 P.2d 717
View Case »
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876, 73 USLW 4343, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,106, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4301, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5868, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 303
View Case »
Glenn v. Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 569 N.E.2d 783, 4 A.L.R.5th 1060
View Case »
United States v. Nicholas, 686 Fed.Appx. 570
View Case »
U.S. ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 727 F.3d 343
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wayte v. U.S., 470 U.S. 598, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547, 53 USLW 4319

Facts

In July 1980, a Presidential Proclamation required certain young male citizens to register with the Selective Service System. The petitioner, who fell within this class, did not register and instead wrote letters to government officials stating his refusal to comply. These letters were added to a file of nonregistrants, and the Selective Service adopted a passive enforcement policy, investigating and prosecuting only those cases in this file. After receiving warnings and failing to register during a grace period, the petitioner was indicted for failing to register, but the District Court dismissed the indictment, claiming selective prosecution. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision.

A July 1980 Presidential Proclamation directed certain young male citizens to register with the Selective Service System during a specified week. Petitioner fell within the prescribed class but did not register. Instead, he wrote letters to Government officials, including the President, stating that he had not registered and did not intend to do so.

Issue

Whether a passive enforcement policy under which the Government prosecutes only those who report themselves as having violated the law, or who are reported by others, violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

The question presented is whether a passive enforcement policy under which the Government prosecutes only those who report themselves as having violated the law, or who are reported by others, violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

Rule

Selective prosecution claims are judged according to ordinary equal protection standards, requiring a showing of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose. Government regulation is justified if it is within constitutional power, furthers an important governmental interest, is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and imposes no greater restriction on First Amendment freedoms than necessary.

Selective prosecution claims may appropriately be judged according to ordinary equal protection standards. These standards require petitioner to show both that the passive enforcement policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

Analysis

The Court found that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof required to establish a claim of selective prosecution. Although he showed that those prosecuted were vocal nonregistrants, he failed to demonstrate that the Government's enforcement policy targeted him specifically because of his protest activities. The Government's passive enforcement policy treated all reported nonregistrants equally and did not impose special burdens on vocal nonregistrants. Furthermore, the Government's interest in ensuring compliance with the registration law was compelling and justified the enforcement policy.

The evidence he presented demonstrated only that the Government was aware that the passive enforcement policy would result in prosecution of vocal objectors and that they would probably make selective prosecution claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the Government's passive enforcement policy and its 'beg' policy did not violate the First or Fifth Amendment.

We conclude that the Government's passive enforcement system together with its 'beg' policy violated neither the First nor Fifth Amendment.

Who won?

The Government prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that its enforcement policy did not discriminate against the petitioner based on his First Amendment rights.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although petitioner had shown that others similarly situated had not been prosecuted for conduct similar to his, he had not shown that the Government focused its investigation on him because of his protest activities.

You must be