CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1952. NO. 540. UNITED STATES v. NUGENT. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.* Argued May 1, 4, 1953. Decided June 8, 1953. Under 86 (j) of the Selective Service Act of 1948, a person whose claim for exemption as a conscientious objector has been rejected by his local draft board may appeal to an appeal board, which is required to refer the claim to the Department of Justice for a recommendation, which the appeal board is required to consider but is not bound to follow. Before making its recommendation, the Department is required to make an "appropriate inquiry" and to hold a "hearing." After investigating the appellant's background and reputation for sincerity, the Department conducts a hearing, at which the appellant is allowed to appear in person, accompanied by an advisor and witnesses to testify in his behalf. Upon request, he is entitled to be instructed "as to the general nature and character" of any "unfavorable" evidence developed by the investigation; but he is not permitted to see the investigator's report, nor is he informed of the names of persons interviewed by the investigator. Held: 1. This procedure satisfies the requirements of the Act. Pp. 2-9. (a) The statutory scheme for review of exemptions claimed by conscientious objectors does not entitle them to have the investigators' reports produced for their inspection. Pp. 5-6. (b) The Department satisfies its duties under §6 (j) when it accords the registrant a fair opportunity to present his views *Together with No. 573, United States v. Packer, on certiorari to the same court. 1 Opinion of the Court. 346 U.S. before an impartial hearing officer, permits him to produce all relevant evidence in his own behalf and supplies him with a fair résumé of any adverse evidence in the investigator's report. P. 6. (c) The requirement of §6 (j), that the Department afford the registrant a "hearing," does not require it to entertain an all-out collateral attack on the testimony obtained in the prehearing investigation. Pp. 6-9. 2. As thus construed and applied, the Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 9-10. 3. In neither of these cases can the registrant complain of any failure of the Department to supply him with a fair résumé of the investigator's report, because one of them did not request it and in neither case was the investigator's report transmitted to the appeal board or represented to it as being unfavorable. P. 6, note 10. 200 F. 2d 46 and 200 F. 2d 540, reversed. Respondents were convicted of violating § 12 of the Selective Service Act of 1948, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. V) § 462, by willfully refusing to submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States. The Court of Appeals reversed. 200 F. 2d 46, 540. This Court granted certiorari. 345 U. S. 915. Reversed, p. 10. Robert W. Ginnane argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern and Beatrice Rosenberg. Hayden C. Covington argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Herman Adlerstein. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 6 (j) of the Selective Service Act1 provides exemption from military service-partial or full, depending upon the circumstances-for any person "who, by 1 Section 6 (j) appeared in the 1940 Selective Service Act as § 5 (g), 54 Stat. 885, 889. It was reenacted as § 6 (j) of the Selective Service Act of 1948. 62 Stat. 604, 613, 50 U. S. C. § 456 (j). The Act was |