Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Joseph Parisi v. Major General Phillip B. Davidson
Citation: 396 U.S. 1233
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; December 29, 1969; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Joseph Parisi, the petitioner, claims conscientious objector status, which the Army has not approved. He is currently appealing this classification with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. In the meantime, he sought a writ of habeas corpus and an injunction from the District Court for the Northern District of California to prevent his transfer. The District Court denied his request for a writ but issued an order restraining the Army from assigning him to duties that involve significantly greater combat participation than his current psychological counseling role. The court retained jurisdiction over the case. Parisi appealed to the Court of Appeals, requesting a stay on his deployment to Vietnam set for December 31, 1969. The Court of Appeals denied his motion for a stay, conditioned on the Army producing him in the district if he prevails in his appeal. He then sought a stay from the Circuit Justice, indicating he would be deployed imminently. The Circuit Justice noted that while psychological counseling in Vietnam may be similar to that at home, the proximity to combat zones raises concerns, including potential involvement with combat weapons. Previous stays have been granted in similar cases, but this situation is unique due to the District Court's protective order and the assurance given to the Court of Appeals regarding his presence if he wins the habeas corpus case. The Secretary of the Army is a party to the action, preventing the case from becoming moot upon deployment. The Circuit Justice expressed that while a protective order might be warranted if Parisi's success seemed certain, the merits of his case remain unresolved with the Army. Consequently, he cannot assume that the Army would violate the District Court's order. Thus, the application for a stay was denied.