Summary

Scaggs v. Larsen — Opinion of the Court

It has been argued in other cases that the word 'custody' indicates that s 2241 does not reach cases where military authority is being contested by civilians at a pre-induction stage [2] or by servicemen not yet convicted of an offense who entered the Armed Forces 'voluntarily.' [3] I take the opposed view, though the question has not been authoritatively decided. However that may be, s 2241 is not a measure of the constitutional scope of the guarantee in Art.
Source: Wikisource

Scaggs v. Larsen — Opinion of the Court

Pre-induction judicial review is more frequently sought by way of injunction, mandamus, or declaratory judgment. See Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Bd., 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402; Wolff v. Selective Service Local Bd., 2 Cir., 372 F.2d 817; Townsend v. Zimmerman, 6 Cir., 237 F.2d 376.↑ It is settled that illegal induction is properly attacked by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Oestereich v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature