In the case of Witmer v. United States in 1954, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for refusing induction into military service during peacetime based on religious objections. The defendant, Richard G. Witmer, was a Jehovah's Witness who claimed exemption from military service as a conscientious objector under the Universal Military Training and Service Act. However, his claim was denied by his local draft board because they did not believe that he sincerely held these beliefs due to inconsistencies in his statements and actions regarding religion and pacifism over time. Witmer appealed this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to support their conclusion about insincerity of belief which violated his rights under Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court ruled against him stating that it is within discretion of Selective Service System officials to determine sincerity of an individual's conscientious objection claims based on "everyday life" test rather than solely relying upon verbal profession or membership in particular sect or creed; thus affirming lower courts' decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Witmer v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Witmer's conviction was a misinterpretation of the law regarding conscientious objectors. He contended that it is not necessary for an individual to have religious training or belief in a Supreme Being to qualify as a conscientious objector under Selective Service laws; rather, he believed that deeply held moral or ethical convictions should also be considered valid grounds for objection. Furthermore, Douglas criticized the majority’s reliance on subjective judgments about sincerity and depth of conviction when evaluating claims of conscientious objection, arguing this approach could lead to arbitrary decisions based on personal biases rather than objective legal standards.