In-Service Conscientious Objectors: Jurisdiction for Judicial Review
Date
1969
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Texas Tech Law Review
Abstract
This article discusses the judicial remedies available to military personnel who are conscientious objectors. It addresses whether, in view of the rule of law announced in the principle case, the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies should be asserted to defeat habeas corpus jurisdiction of the federal courts. In other words, whether those courts, which have followed the federal view prior to the decision in the principal case, now decline to accept jurisdiction by way of habeas corpus because the serviceman has an adequate remedy within the military judicial system.
Description
Keywords
Judicial review, Conscientious objector, Military jurisdiction, Federal court jurisdiction, Military personnel, Court martial, Military law, Exhaustion of remedies doctrine, Habeas corpus jurisdiction, Noyd v. McNamara, United States v. Noyd, Hammond v. Lenfest
Citation
1 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 145