In Dove v. United States, the petitioner challenged his conviction for refusing induction into the armed forces during the Vietnam War on grounds of conscientious objection. The Supreme Court ruled against him in 1975, upholding his conviction and rejecting his claim that he was denied due process because local draft boards were not required to state reasons for denying conscientious objector status. The court held that there is no constitutional requirement for such a statement of reasons and found no violation of procedural due process rights as long as there was a basis in fact for denial. Furthermore, it noted that requiring written explanations could lead to legalistic quibbling over semantics rather than focusing on whether or not an applicant genuinely holds conscientious objections.

In the dissenting opinion for Dove v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold Dove's conviction was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of his case. The justice believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was obtained and used against Dove, which should have led to a reversal of his conviction. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain laws and precedents related to drug trafficking offenses, arguing that they had been applied too broadly in this instance. Furthermore, they felt that Dove’s sentence was disproportionately harsh given the nature of his crimes and personal circumstances. Overall, their view was one advocating for greater fairness and due process in criminal proceedings.