Wayte v. United States

470 U.S. 598 (1985)

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

Wayte (D) was subject to registration with the Selective Service System during the week of July 21, 1960. D did not register and instead wrote several letters to government officials including the President that he did not intend to register. Selective Service was given the letters and D was informed that his refusal to register was a violation of the law. Selective Service never sent any other letters to anyone other than those who had reported their violation and those who were reported by others as not having registered. The FBI then sent notice of noncompliance and the consequences of the failure to comply. This became known as the 'beg' policy. Those who eventually registered were left alone, but those who passed this hurdle by not registering were given one last chance. A grace period was announced by the President and by the expiration of that period D had still not complied. The decision to prosecute those not registered and known to the government was taken. D was indicted and moved to dismiss; that only vocal opponents to the system had been indicted and that the other 647,000 nonregistrants were not prosecuted simply because they did not exercise their First Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Government had failed to rebut D's prima facie case of selective prosecution. Following precedents of the Court of Appeals the District Court found that, in order to establish a prima facie case, petitioner had to prove that (i) others similarly situated generally had not been prosecuted for conduct similar to petitioner's and (ii) the Government's discriminatory selection was based on impermissible grounds such as race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals reversed. Applying the same test, it found the first requirement satisfied, but not the second. As to the second requirement, the Court of Appeals held that D had to show that the Government focused its investigation on him because of his protest activities. D's evidence showed only that the Government was aware that the passive enforcement system would result in prosecutions primarily of two types of men -- religious and moral objectors and vocal objectors -- and that the Government recognized that the latter type would probably make claims of selective prosecution.