The case of Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, Cheyenne, Wyoming et al., in 1968 revolved around the issue of draft deferment during the Vietnam War era for divinity students. The plaintiff, Paul Oestereich was a theological student who had his draft deferment revoked by his local board after he participated in anti-war protests and turned in his draft card as part of these demonstrations. He sued on grounds that this action violated due process rights because there was no basis under existing law to revoke a duly granted exemption without any change in status other than political protest activity unrelated to suitability for service or ministerial preparation. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (with two justices not participating) that the Selective Service overstepped its authority when it pre-emptively reclassified Oestereich's status from exempt to eligible before he finished seminary school or failed an examination proving him qualified as a minister - both being conditions required by law before such reclassification could occur. This decision affirmed that even during times of war, government agencies must adhere strictly to laws governing their actions and cannot arbitrarily punish individuals for exercising their constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, Justice Harlan argued that the Court should not have taken jurisdiction in this case because it was essentially a draft evasion case and thus fell under Section 10(b)(3) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 which prohibits judicial review of classification decisions made by local boards until all administrative remedies are exhausted. He believed that Congress intended to prevent pre-induction judicial review in order to maintain an orderly and prompt system for military conscription. Furthermore, he contended that Mr. Oestereich's claim did not fall within any exceptions allowing immediate court intervention as his situation was neither "blatantly lawless" nor deprived him of constitutional rights since he still had access to post-declassification relief through habeas corpus proceedings after induction into service.