In Kolden v. Selective Service Local Board No. 4, the petitioner, a conscientious objector to war based on his religious beliefs, was denied exemption from military service by his local draft board and subsequently convicted for refusing induction into the armed forces. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed this case in 1969 and held that there was no basis in law for denying Kolden's claim as a conscientious objector since he had demonstrated sincere opposition to war grounded in religious principles. The court ruled that it is not necessary for an individual's belief system to align with traditional or organized religion to be considered valid under selective service laws; rather, deeply held moral or ethical convictions can also qualify as grounds for objection. Therefore, the court reversed Kolden’s conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Kolden v. Selective Service Local Board No. 4, it was argued that the petitioner should have been given a conscientious objector status due to his religious beliefs and moral convictions against war in any form. The dissenting justices believed that there was no basis for the local board's denial of this status as they found "no evidence" contradicting Kolden's claim of being a conscientious objector. They also criticized the majority decision for failing to provide clear standards on what constitutes sufficient proof or evidence when applying for such an exemption from military service, arguing that this lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary and unfair decisions by local boards across different cases.