In Polites v. United States (1960), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving George Polites, who was convicted for refusing to be inducted into the armed forces during peacetime under the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The conviction was based on his failure to report for induction after being classified as available for military service by his local draft board. Polites argued that he should have been granted conscientious objector status due to his religious beliefs, which were against war in any form. However, both lower courts denied this claim because they believed that he had not sufficiently proved these beliefs were sincere or deeply held. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings with a 5-4 decision stating that there was enough evidence supporting the draft board's classification of him as fit for service and denying him conscientious objector status. They concluded it is within their discretion whether or not an individual has demonstrated sufficient sincerity and depth of belief necessary to qualify them as a conscientious objector.

In the dissenting opinion for Polites v. United States, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny citizenship to a man who had served in the U.S. military during World War II but was later found guilty of desertion. He argued that Congress intended for service members like Polites to be granted citizenship regardless of any subsequent misconduct unless it occurred before naturalization proceedings were completed. The justice contended that this interpretation is consistent with other provisions in immigration law and reflects Congress's appreciation for those willing to risk their lives in defense of the country. Furthermore, he pointed out that there are already legal mechanisms available if someone obtained their citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation, which would not apply here as Polites' desertion happened after his naturalization process was finished.