In the case of Bradley et al. v. United States, 1972, the appellants were convicted for refusing to submit to induction into the armed forces during the Vietnam War era under a law that provided criminal penalties for such refusal. They argued that their convictions should be overturned because they had been denied due process as a result of alleged procedural irregularities in their draft board proceedings and claimed that these errors invalidated their subsequent orders to report for induction. The Supreme Court held that even if there were procedural errors at some stages of the Selective Service System's processing of a registrant, it does not necessarily invalidate an order to report for induction unless there is proof showing prejudice or bias against them resulting from those errors. Therefore, any error committed by local boards must be harmful enough to significantly infringe upon a registrant’s rights before it can lead to overturning an order calling him up for military service.

In the dissenting opinion for Bradley et al. v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding conspiracy law. He contended that in order to be convicted of conspiracy, there must be an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act and at least one overt act in furtherance of this agreement. In this case, he believed these elements were not present as it involved only one person who had knowledge of and participated in all aspects of the alleged crime - smuggling marijuana into the U.S.. The other defendants did not have full knowledge or participation; they merely provided transportation without knowing what they were transporting was illegal drugs. Therefore, according to Douglas' interpretation of conspiracy law, their actions could not constitute a criminal offense because they lacked intent and understanding necessary for such conviction.