In the 1943 case Falbo v. United States, Anthony Falbo was convicted for refusing to report for induction into military service during World War II after being classified as a conscientious objector by his local draft board. He argued that he should have been immediately assigned to civilian work instead of being required to report for military induction first. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 did not provide an immediate alternative service option for conscientious objectors but rather required them to report for military induction before they could be reassigned to noncombatant or civilian duty. The court also held that it had jurisdiction over this matter even though Falbo had not exhausted all administrative remedies because he raised substantial constitutional questions about the interpretation and application of the Act.

In the dissenting opinion for Falbo v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. He believed that Falbo should have been allowed to present his conscientious objector claim before being criminally prosecuted for failing to report for induction into military service. According to Justice Murphy, this interpretation would not only uphold an individual’s right to due process but also align with Congress' intent in creating provisions within the act specifically designed to protect conscientious objectors from compulsory military service. The justice asserted that by denying Falbo this opportunity, they were essentially punishing him without giving him a chance to exercise his rights under law.