Gutknecht v. United States
The Court held that the United States Selective Service System lacked statutory authority to punitively accelerate the induction of registrants declared "delinquent" for violating Selective Service regulations.
396 U.S. 295 · No. 71 · 1969 term · Burger Court
Decided Jan 19, 1970 · argued Nov 20, 1969
Civil rights · Military: draftee, or person subject to induction
Majority opinion: William Douglas
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed. Gutknecht won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Gutknecht was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295 (1970), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the United States Selective Service System lacked statutory authority to punitively accelerate the induction of registrants declared "delinquent" for violating Selective Service regulations. The Court reversed the conviction of an anti-war protester whose induction had been accelerated after he left his Selective Service registration documents on the steps of a federal building in Minneapolis as an act of protest.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1969 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
William DouglasWrote the majority opinion
Byron WhiteWrote a concurrence
Potter StewartWrote a concurrence
John HarlanWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Hugo BlackJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- GutknechtPerson subject to selective service
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 19, 1970DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: reversed. Gutknecht won.
- Nov 20, 1969ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Minnesota U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
7 other argued cases since 1946 on military: draftee, or person subject to induction, newest first.
- Jon E. Edmond v. United States520 U.S. 651May 19, 1997 · 520 U.S. 651Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Toussie v. United States397 U.S. 112Mar 2, 1970 · 397 U.S. 112Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16 et al.396 U.S. 460Jan 26, 1970 · 396 U.S. 460Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- McKart v. United States395 U.S. 185May 26, 1969 · 395 U.S. 185Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Duvernay v. United States.394 U.S. 309Mar 24, 1969 · 394 U.S. 309Civil rights4–45–4 band
- Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, Cheyenne, Wyoming, et al.393 U.S. 233Dec 16, 1968 · 393 U.S. 233Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Orloff v. Willoughby, Commandant345 U.S. 83Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 83Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.