In Cox v. United States (1947), the Supreme Court examined whether a draft board's classification decision could be judicially reviewed and if so, to what extent. The appellant had been classified as I-A-O (conscientious objector available for noncombatant military service) by his local draft board, but he argued that he should have been classified as IV-E (conscientious objector opposed to both combatant and noncombatant service). He was convicted of refusing induction into the armed forces after failing in his administrative appeal. The Supreme Court held that while courts generally do not review discretionary decisions made by administrative agencies like a draft board, they can determine whether there has been a basis in fact for such decisions. In this case, it found sufficient evidence supporting the I-A-O classification given to Cox by his local draft board.

In the dissenting opinion for Cox v. United States, Justice Wiley Rutledge argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. He contended that this law did not give local draft boards unlimited discretion in determining a registrant's classification status, but rather required them to base their decisions on "facts" presented by each individual case. In his view, these facts should include both objective evidence (such as employment records) and subjective considerations (like personal beliefs). Furthermore, he believed that courts had an obligation to review these decisions if they were challenged on appeal - contrary to what the majority held. By failing to do so in this case, Rutledge claimed that the Supreme Court was effectively allowing draft boards to act with impunity while denying citizens their right of judicial review under administrative law principles.