Parker v. Levy

417 U.S. 733 (1974)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The UCMJ has articles that restrict what soldiers may say, read, and how they can assemble. Levy (Appellee) was a physician assigned to training Special Forces aide men. It was determined that Appellee was not performing his job. His commander called appellee to his office and personally handed him a written order to conduct the training. Appellee read the order, said that he understood it, but declared that he would not obey it because of his medical ethics. Appellee persisted in his refusal to obey the order, and later reviews of the program established that the training was still not being carried out. Appellee also made several public statements to enlisted personnel: “The United States is wrong in being involved in the Viet Nam War. I would refuse to go to Viet Nam if ordered to do so. I don't see why any colored soldier would go to Viet Nam: they should refuse to go to Viet Nam, and, if sent, should refuse to fight because they are discriminated against and denied their freedom in the United States, and they are sacrificed and discriminated against in Viet Nam by being given all the hazardous duty, and they are suffering the majority of casualties. If I were a colored soldier, I would refuse to go to Viet Nam, and if I were a colored soldier and were sent, I would refuse to fight. Special Forces personnel are liars and thieves and killers of peasants and murderers of women and children.” Appellee was court-martialed. Allegations included 'willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer' and wrongfully and dishonorably' making statements variously described as intemperate, defamatory, provoking, disloyal, contemptuous, and disrespectful to Special Forces personnel and to enlisted personnel who were patients or under his supervision. Appellee was convicted and sentenced to three years of hard labor. He sought federal habeas corpus in the United States District Court. The relief was denied: various articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are not unconstitutional for vagueness. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Arts. 133 and 134 are void for vagueness. A new trial was ordered.