Petitioner, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was denied classification as a conscientious objector under 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. He appealed. After the usual investigation, the Department of Justice admitted his sincerity but recommended to the Appeal Board that classification as a conscientious objector be denied, on the ground that he was not entitled to exemption because he had indicated his willingness to fight in defense of "his ministry, Kingdom Interests and ... his fellow brethren." The Appeal Board denied petitioner classification as a conscientious objector, and he was convicted of failing to submit to induction under 12 (a) of the Act. Held: The recommendation of the Department of Justice was based on an error of law, and the conviction is reversed. Pp. 386-392. (a) In view of petitioner's emphasis throughout his selective service form that the weapons of his warfare were spiritual, not carnal, his willingness to use force in defense of Kingdom Interests and brethren is not sufficiently inconsistent with his claim to justify the conclusion that he fell short of being a conscientious objector to "participation in war in any form" within the meaning of 6 (j). Pp. 389-390. (b) By relating a registrant's conscientious objection to his religious training and belief, Congress has made the beliefs of his religious sect relevant; but it was erroneous as a matter of law to deny a member of Jehovah's Witnesses exemption as a conscientious objector merely because members of that sect are ready to engage in a "theocratic war," if Jehovah so commands, and willing to fight at Armageddon with spiritual, not carnal, weapons. Pp. 390-391. (c) When Congress referred to participation in war in any form, it had in mind actual military conflicts between nations of the earth in our time. P. 391. (d) If a registrant has the requisite conscientious objection, on religious grounds, to participation in war in any form, he does not forfeit his rights under 6 (j) because his other beliefs may extend beyond the exemption granted by Congress. P. 391. (e) The Department of Justice's error of law in its report to the Appeal Board must vitiate the entire proceedings, since it is not clear that the Board relied on some legitimate ground in denying petitioner's classification as a conscientious objector. Pp. 391-392. 213 F.2d 911, reversed. Petitioner was convicted of failing to submit to induction into the armed forces in violation of 12 (a) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 213 F.2d 911. This Court granted certiorari. . Reversed, p. 392.Hayden C. Covington argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.John F. Davis argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and J. F. Bishop.MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.Petitioner was born in 1927 and was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness by his parents, both of whom were of that faith. He has been identified with the sect since he was 6 years old, "was immersed and became a consecrated servant of Jehovah" at 15, and was ordained when 17 years old. He registered with his local Board in 1948, and, although he worked 44 hours a week for the Railway Express Company, he was first classified as a minister. In 1950, however, petitioner was reclassified for general service and, shortly thereafter, he filed his conscientious objector claim.In the special form, petitioner included this statement: "The nature of my claim is that: I am already in the Army of Christ Jesus serving as a soldier of Jehovah's appointed Commander Jesus Christ. (2 Tim. 2:3 & 4). Inasmuch as the war weapons of the soldier of Jesus Christ are not carnal, I am not authorized by his Commander to engage in carnal warfare of this world. (2 Corinthians 10:3 & 4, Ephesians 6:11-18) Furthermore being enlisted in the army of Jesus Christ, I cannot desert the forces of Jehovah to assume the obligations of a soldier in any army of this world without being guilty of desertion and suffering the punishment meted out to deserters by Almighty God... ." In answer to the question, "Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe in the use of force," he wrote: "Only in the interests of defending Kingdom Interests, our preaching work, our meetings, our fellow brethren and sisters and our property against attack. I (as well as all Jehovah's Witnesses) defend those when they are attacked and are forced to protect such interests and scripturally so. Because in doing so we do not arm ourselves or carry carnal weapons in anticipation of or in preparation for trouble or to meet threats. In doing so I try to ward off blows and attacks only in defense. I do not use weapons of warfare in defense of myself or the Kingdom interests. I do not retreat when attacked in my home or at meeting places, but will retreat on public or other property and shake the dust off my feet; so not giving what is holy to dogs and not throwing my pearls before swine. (Matthew 10:14 & 7:6) So I retreat when I can do so and avoid a fight or trouble. Also following the admonition at Acts 24:16; which states `In this respect, indeed, I am exercising myself continually to have a consciousness of committing no offense against God and man.'" Upon a denial of this claim by the local Board, petitioner appealed and his file was referred to the Department of Justice. It appears that the report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation contained nothing unfavorable to petitioner's claim, and the hearing officer concluded that petitioner should be classified as a conscientious objector. In advising the Department of Justice, the hearing officer wrote that he "was convinced that [petitioner] has sincere objections to military service by reason of his religious training and beliefs." The Department of Justice, although admitting that the investigation was favorable to petitioner, recommended to the Appeal Board that petitioner's claim be denied on the ground that "While the registrant may be sincere in the beliefs he has expressed, he has, however, failed to establish that he is opposed to war in any form. As indicated by the statements on his SSS Form No. 150, registrant will fight under some circumstances, namely in defense of his ministry, Kingdom Interests, and in defense of his fellow brethren. He is, therefore, not entitled to exemption within the meaning of the Act." The Appeal Board retained petitioner in his I-A classification, and thereafter, when duly ordered to report, he refused to submit to induction. This prosecution followed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed petitioner's conviction. 213 F.2d 911. We granted certiorari. .In this case, unlike Witmer, ante, p. 375, it is admitted that petitioner is sincere; we are therefore relieved of the task of searching the record for basis in fact to support a finding of insincerity. The only question presented in this case is one of law - do the beliefs which petitioner says he holds amount to the conscientious opposition to "participation in war in any form" demanded by Congress as a prerequisite to the conscientious objector deferment? Stated in the light of the background, the question at issue is whether a registrant under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, who is admittedly a sincere Jehovah's Witness and conscientious objector to participation in war, but who believes in the use of force in defending "his ministry, Kingdom interests and ... his fellow brethren," is entitled to exemption under 6 (j) of the Act from service in the armed forces. The Government insists that petitioner's statements reveal qualified and varied objection to war - and that "petitioner's willingness to fight in defense of `Kingdom Interests', particularly when those words are considered in the light of the teachings of his sect, ..." is clearly not opposition to war in any form.The Government does not contend that the petitioner's belief in the use of force in self-defense, as well as the defense of his home, family and associates, is so inconsistent with his claim of conscientious objection as to serve as a basis for a denial of his claim.* The question here narrows to whether the willingness to use of force in defense of Kingdom interests and brethren is sufficiently inconsistent with petitioner's claim as to justify the conclusion that he fell short of being a conscientious objector. Throughout his selective service form, petitioner emphasized that the weapons of his warfare were spiritual, not carnal. He asserted that he was a soldier in the Army of Jesus Christ and that "the war weapons of the soldier of Jesus Christ are not carnal." With reference to the defense of his ministry, his brethren and Kingdom interests, he asserted that "we do not arm ourselves or carry carnal weapons ... . I do not use weapons of warfare in defense ... of Kingdom interests ... ." In letters to the local Board he reiterated these beliefs. On their face, these statements make it clear that petitioner's defense of "Kingdom Interests" has neither the bark nor the bite of war as we unfortunately know it today. It is difficult for us to believe that the Congress had in mind this type of activity when it said the thrust of conscientious objection must go to "participation in war in any form."But the Government urges that these statements of petitioner must be taken in the light of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. While each case must of necessity be based on the particular beliefs of the individual registrant, it is true that the Congress, by relating the registrant's conscientious objection to his religious training and belief, has made the belief of his sect relevant. Moreover, the petitioner does parenthetically say that his belief in the use of force was "as well ... [the belief of] all Jehovah's Witnesses." On the other hand, though the Government has appended to its brief a copy of the Watchtower magazine of February 1, 1951, we do not find any such literature in the record. It is not at all clear that we may consider such material outside the record to support an Appeal Board decision, cf. Cox v. United States, , but we need not decide that here because in any event there is no substance to the Government's contention. Granting that these articles picture Jehovah's Witnesses as antipacifists, extolling the ancient wars of the Israelites and ready to engage in a "theocratic war" if Jehovah so commands them, and granting that the Jehovah's Witnesses will fight at Armageddon, we do not feel this is enough. The test is not whether the registrant is opposed to all war, but whether he is opposed, on religious grounds, to participation in war. As to theocratic war, petitioner's willingness to fight on the orders of Jehovah is tempered by the fact that, so far as we know, their history records no such command since Biblical times and their theology does not appear to contemplate one in the future. And although the Jehovah's Witnesses may fight in the Armageddon, we are not able to stretch our imagination to the point of believing that the yardstick of the Congress includes within its measure such spiritual wars between the powers of good and evil where the Jehovah's Witnesses, if they participate, will do so without carnal weapons.We believe that Congress had in mind real shooting wars when it referred to participation in war in any form - actual military conflicts between nations of the earth in our time - wars with bombs and bullets, tanks, planes and rockets. We believe the reasoning of the Government in denying petitioner's claim is so far removed from any possible congressional intent that it is erroneous as a matter of law.The Court of Appeals also rested its decision on the conclusion that petitioner's objection to participation in war was only a facet of his real objection to all governmental authority. We believe, however, that if the requisite objection to participation in war exists, it makes no difference that a registrant also claims, on religious grounds, other exemptions which are not covered by the Act. Once he comes within 6 (j), he does not forfeit its coverage because of his other beliefs which may extend beyond the exemption granted by Congress.The Government also contends, apparently for the first time, that petitioner objects to "participation in war in any form," if in fact he does, not from a feeling that it is wrong to participate in war but because such participation will require time which petitioner feels should be devoted to his religious activities. In its memorandum indicating its lack of opposition to certiorari, the Government gave no hint that it considered such an issue in the case, and it is unnecessary for us to consider it here. The report of the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board clearly bases its recommendation on petitioner's willingness to "fight under some circumstances, namely in defense of his ministry, Kingdom Interests, and in defense of his fellow brethren," and we feel that this error of law by the Department, to which the Appeal Board might naturally look for guidance on such questions, must vitiate the entire proceedings at least where it is not clear that the Board relied on some legitimate ground. Here, where it is impossible to determine on exactly which grounds the Appeal Board decided, the integrity of the Selective Service System demands, at least, that the Government not recommend illegal grounds. There is an impressive body of lower court cases taking this position and we believe that they state the correct rule. Cf. United States ex rel. Levy v. Cain, 149 F.2d 338, 342 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1945); United States v. Balogh, 157 F.2d 939, 943-944 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1946), judgment vacated on other grounds, ; United States v. Everngam, 102 F. Supp. 128 (S. D. W. Va. 1951).The decision below is therefore Reversed.[Footnote *] In United States v. Taffs, in which we denied certiorari, , the Government admitted as much in its petition. Its admission here does not extend to the category "brethren" which was not used in Taffs.MR. JUSTICE REED, dissenting.It is not important to the United States military strength that a few people eligible for military service are excused from combat and noncombatant duties as conscientious objectors. It is important to other American citizens that many without such scruples against war must serve while the few continue their assigned tasks with no exposure to danger greater than that of other civilians.Many, by reason of religious training or moral conviction, may be opposed to certain wars declared by the Nation. But they must serve because they do not meet the test of the statute, "conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The Court assumes that Sicurella's conscience permits him to participate in theocratic wars, that is, those approved by Jehovah, such as the blood and flesh wars of the Israelites. Sicurella testified he would use force in defense of "Kingdom Interests." Those words also seem to me to include theocratic wars. Under the assumption of the Court and petitioner's statements, he is not covered by the statutory exemption. His position is inconsistent with his claimed opposition to war. I would require him to serve in the military service.MR. JUSTICE MINTON, dissenting.The findings and classification made by the Selective Service Board and the Appeal Board are final. 50 U.S.C. App. (1952 ed.) 460(b)(3). This Court does not sit as a court of review. It is not our province to substitute our judgment of the facts for that of the Board or to correct the Board's errors of law unless they are so wanton, arbitrary and capricious as to destroy the jurisdiction of the Board.This Court said in Estep v. United States, , at pp. 122-123:"The provision making the decisions of the local boards `final' means to us that Congress chose not to give administrative action under this Act the customary scope of judicial review which obtains under other statutes. It means that the courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by the local boards was justified. The decisions of the local boards made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant." (Emphasis added.) In that case, Estep had claimed that his classification was made arbitrarily and capriciously. This is always a question of jurisdiction. Was the Board acting in wanton disregard of its legal boundaries? If it was not, but made what we might consider an honest mistake in judgment, this Court should not intervene.In the instant case, the Court does not say that the Board acted capriciously and arbitrarily or that the judgment of the Board was not an allowable judgment of reasonable men. The Court states that a mistake in advice was made by the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board."The report of the Department of Justice ... clearly bases its recommendation on petitioner's willingness to `fight under some circumstances, namely in defense of his ministry, Kingdom Interests, and in defense of his fellow brethren,' and we feel that this error of law by the Department, to which the Appeal Board might naturally look for guidance on such questions, must vitiate the entire proceedings ... ." It will be noted that the Court says there was error of law not by the Appeal Board but by the Department of Justice, whose recommendation is purely advisory and not binding upon the Appeal Board. 50 U.S.C. App. (1952 ed.) 456 (j). The Court concludes that the Department of Justice committed an error of law by recommending to the Appeal Board that the petitioner be denied conscientious objector classification because of petitioner's willingness to "fight under some circumstances, namely in defense of his ministry, Kingdom Interests, and in defense of his fellow brethren." The record in this case clearly establishes that this was the position and attitude of the petitioner as a faithful Jehovah's Witness. Petitioner says he is opposed to fighting a secular war but is not opposed to fighting a religious war where the interests of his sect are involved. This does not meet the test of the statute, 50 U.S.C. App. (1952 ed.) 456 (j), which provides: "Nothing contained in this title [sections 451-454 and 455-471 of this Appendix] shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The petitioner is not opposed to "participation in war in any form." That is the congressional test. On the contrary, he reserves the right to choose the wars in which he will fight. The petitioner refused even to be inducted for any kind of limited service, combatant or otherwise.The Court's opinion gives the impression that the petitioner and his sect would not use force. In petitioner's own statement to the Board, he contradicts such a position. SSS Form No. 150, filled out by the petitioner and submitted to the Board, contains the following question and answer: "5. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe in the use of force? "Only in the interests of defending Kingdom Interests, our preaching work, our meetings, our fellow brethren and sisters and our property against attack. I (as well as all Jehovah's Witnesses) defend those when they are attacked and are forced to protect such interests and scripturally so. Because in doing so we do not arm ourselves or carry carnal weapons in anticipation of or in preparation for trouble or to meet threats." This answer clearly shows that the petitioner and his sect will fight for Kingdom Interests, whatever that is, preaching work, their meetings, their fellow brethren and sisters, and their property. They do not, they say, carry carnal weapons in anticipation of attack, but they will use them in case of attack. This evidence clearly supports the District Court's finding of guilt; and the conclusion of the Selective Service Board based on such evidence was an allowable one.I think the Department of Justice might very well have believed petitioner did not meet the test laid down by Congress. By accepting the Department's recommendation, the Board might have been mistaken, but it was an honest mistake. There is not the slightest intimation of arbitrary or capricious conduct on the part of the Board.Because we do not sit to review errors of fact or law unless the latter be so arbitrary and capricious as to destroy the Board's jurisdiction, and because I think the decision of the Appeal Board, even if the Board accepted and relied upon the recommendation of the Department of Justice, was an honest opinion and, therefore, an allowable judgment not arbitrarily and capriciously made, I would affirm.


Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 906 F.2d 624.Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Hugh L. Reilly and Herbert R. Kraft.Barry Richard argued the cause and filed briefs for respondents.* [Footnote *] Anthony T. Caso and Ronald A. Zumbrun filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Education Association et al. by Robert H. Chanin, Bruce R. Lerner, and Jeremiah A. Collins, for the State Bar of Wisconsin by John S. Skilton and William M. Conley, and for David P. Frankel et. al. by Mr. Frankel, pro se, and Joseph W. Little.PER CURIAM.The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.


The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to have the accused reindicted on more serious charges on which he is plainly subject to prosecution if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged. Pp. 360-365. (a) "[T]he guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Blackledge v. Allison, . Pp. 361-362. (b) Though to punish a person because he has done what the law allows violates due process, see North Carolina v. Pearce, , there is no such element of punishment in the "give-and-take" of plea bargaining as long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecutor's offer. Pp. 362-364. (c) This Court has accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor's interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his right to plead not guilty, and in pursuing that course here the prosecutor did not exceed constitutional bounds. Pp. 364-365. 547 F.2d 42, reversed.STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 365. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 368.Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General.J. Vincent Aprile II argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.* MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.The question in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state prosecutor carries out a threat made during plea negotiations to reindict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged.IThe respondent, Paul Lewis Hayes, was indicted by a Fayette County, Ky., grand jury on a charge of uttering a forged instrument in the amount of $88.30, an offense then punishable by a term of 2 to 10 years in prison. Ky. Rev. Stat. 434.130 (1973) (repealed 1975). After arraignment, Hayes, his retained counsel, and the Commonwealth's Attorney met in the presence of the Clerk of the Court to discuss a possible plea agreement. During these conferences the prosecutor offered to recommend a sentence of five years in prison if Hayes would plead guilty to the indictment. He also said that if Hayes did not plead guilty and "save the court the inconvenience and necessity of a trial," he would return to the grand jury to seek an indictment under the Kentucky Habitual Criminal Act,1 then Ky. Rev. Stat. 431.190 (1973) (repealed 1975), which would subject Hayes to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment by reason of his two prior felony convictions.2 Hayes chose not to plead guilty, and the prosecutor did obtain an indictment charging him under the Habitual Criminal Act. It is not disputed that the recidivist charge was fully justified by the evidence, that the prosecutor was in possession of this evidence at the time of the original indictment, and that Hayes' refusal to plead guilty to the original charge was what led to his indictment under the habitual criminal statute.A jury found Hayes guilty on the principal charge of uttering a forged instrument and, in a separate proceeding, further found that he had twice before been convicted of felonies. As required by the habitual offender statute, he was sentenced to a life term in the penitentiary. The Kentucky Court of Appeals rejected Hayes' constitutional objections to the enhanced sentence, holding in an unpublished opinion that imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole was constitutionally permissible in light of the previous felonies of which Hayes had been convicted,3 and that the prosecutor's decision to indict him as a habitual offender was a legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process. On Hayes' petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky agreed that there had been no constitutional violation in the sentence or the indictment procedure, and denied the writ.4 The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment. Hayes v. Cowan, 547 F.2d 42. While recognizing "that plea bargaining now plays an important role in our criminal justice system," id., at 43, the appellate court thought that the prosecutor's conduct during the bargaining negotiations had violated the principles of Blackledge v. Perry, , which "protect[ed] defendants from the vindictive exercise of a prosecutor's discretion." 547 F.2d, at 44. Accordingly, the court ordered that Hayes be discharged "except for his confinement under a lawful sentence imposed solely for the crime of uttering a forged instrument." Id., at 45. We granted certiorari to consider a constitutional question of importance in the administration of criminal justice. .IIIt may be helpful to clarify at the outset the nature of the issue in this case. While the prosecutor did not actually obtain the recidivist indictment until after the plea conferences had ended, his intention to do so was clearly expressed at the outset of the plea negotiations. Hayes was thus fully informed of the true terms of the offer when he made his decision to plead not guilty. This is not a situation, therefore, where the prosecutor without notice brought an additional and more serious charge after plea negotiations relating only to the original indictment had ended with the defendant's insistence on pleading not guilty.5 As a practical matter, in short, this case would be no different if the grand jury had indicted Hayes as a recidivist from the outset, and the prosecutor had offered to drop that charge as part of the plea bargain.The Court of Appeals nonetheless drew a distinction between "concessions relating to prosecution under an existing indictment," and threats to bring more severe charges not contained in the original indictment - a line it thought necessary in order to establish a prophylactic rule to guard against the evil of prosecutorial vindictiveness.6 Quite apart from this chronological distinction, however, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor had acted vindictively in the present case since he had conceded that the indictment was influenced by his desire to induce a guilty plea.7 The ultimate conclusion of the Court of Appeals thus seems to have been that a prosecutor acts vindictively and in violation of due process of law whenever his charging decision is influenced by what he hopes to gain in the course of plea bargaining negotiations.IIIWe have recently had occasion to observe: "Whatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned." Blackledge v. Allison, . The open acknowledgment of this previously clandestine practice has led this Court to recognize the importance of counsel during plea negotiations, Brady v. United States, , the need for a public record indicating that a plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, Boykin v. Alabama, , and the requirement that a prosecutor's plea-bargaining promise must be kept, Santobello v. New York, . The decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case, however, did not deal with considerations such as these, but held that the substance of the plea offer itself violated the limitations imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Brady v. United States, supra, at 751 n. 8. For the reasons that follow, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals was mistaken in so ruling.IVThis Court held in North Carolina v. Pearce, , that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial." The same principle was later applied to prohibit a prosecutor from reindicting a convicted misdemeanant on a felony charge after the defendant had invoked an appellate remedy, since in this situation there was also a "realistic likelihood of `vindictiveness.'" Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S., at 27.In those cases the Court was dealing with the State's unilateral imposition of a penalty upon a defendant who had chosen to exercise a legal right to attack his original conviction - a situation "very different from the give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining between the prosecution and defense, which arguably possess relatively equal bargaining power." Parker v. North Carolina, , 809 (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). The Court has emphasized that the due process violation in cases such as Pearce and Perry lay not in the possibility that a defendant might be deterred from the exercise of a legal right, see Colten v. Kentucky, ; Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, , but rather in the danger that the State might be retaliating against the accused for lawfully attacking his conviction. See Blackledge v. Perry, supra, at 26-28.To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort, see North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 738 (opinion of Black, J.), and for an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person's reliance on his legal rights is "patently unconstitutional." Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 32-33, n. 20. See United States v. Jackson, . But in the "give-and-take" of plea bargaining, there is no such element of punishment or retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution's offer.Plea bargaining flows from "the mutuality of advantage" to defendants and prosecutors, each with his own reasons for wanting to avoid trial. Brady v. United States, supra, at 752. Defendants advised by competent counsel and protected by other procedural safeguards are presumptively capable of intelligent choice in response to prosecutorial persuasion, and unlikely to be driven to false self-condemnation. 397 U.S., at 758. Indeed, acceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining process. By hypothesis, the plea may have been induced by promises of a recommendation of a lenient sentence or a reduction of charges, and thus by fear of the possibility of a greater penalty upon conviction after a trial. See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty 3.1 (App. Draft 1968); Note, Plea Bargaining and the Transformation of the Criminal Process, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 564 (1977). Cf. Brady v. United States, supra, at 751; North Carolina v. Alford, .While confronting a defendant with the risk of more severe punishment clearly may have a "discouraging effect on the defendant's assertion of his trial rights, the imposition of these difficult choices [is] an inevitable" - and permissible - "attribute of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas." Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 31. It follows that, by tolerating and encouraging the negotiation of pleas, this Court has necessarily accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor's interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his right to plead not guilty.It is not disputed here that Hayes was properly chargeable under the recidivist statute, since he had in fact been convicted of two previous felonies. In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.8 Within the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation" so long as "the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Oyler v. Boles, . To hold that the prosecutor's desire to induce a guilty plea is an "unjustifiable standard," which, like race or religion, may play no part in his charging decision, would contradict the very premises that underlie the concept of plea bargaining itself. Moreover, a rigid constitutional rule that would prohibit a prosecutor from acting forthrightly in his dealings with the defense could only invite unhealthy subterfuge that would drive the practice of plea bargaining back into the shadows from which it has so recently emerged. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S., at 76.There is no doubt that the breadth of discretion that our country's legal system vests in prosecuting attorneys carries with it the potential for both individual and institutional abuse.9 And broad though that discretion may be, there are undoubtedly constitutional limits upon its exercise. We hold only that the course of conduct engaged in by the prosecutor in this case, which no more than openly presented the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of forgoing trial or facing charges on which he was plainly subject to prosecution, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.[Footnote *] John L. Hill, Attorney General, David M. Kendall, First Assistant Attorney General, Joe B. Dibrell, Jr., and Anita Ashton, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Texas as amicus curiae urging reversal.Paul N. Halvonik, Charles M. Sevilla, Ephraim Margolin, and Sheldon Portman filed a brief for the California State Public Defender et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.


At least as applied in this case to a native-born citizen of the United States who did not voluntarily relinquish or abandon his citizenship or become involved in any way with a foreign nation, 401 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, which provides that a citizen "shall lose his nationality" by "deserting the military or naval forces of the United States in time of war, provided he is convicted thereof by court martial and as a result of such conviction is dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the service," is unconstitutional. Pp. 87-114. 239 F.2d 527, reversed.THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in an opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, concluded that: 1. Citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. Pp. 91-93. 2. Even if citizenship could be divested in the exercise of some governmental power, 401 (g) violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is penal in nature and prescribes a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Pp. 93-104.MR. JUSTICE BLACK, in an opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurred in the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE and expressed the view that, even if citizenship could be involuntarily divested, the power to denationalize may not be placed in the hands of military authorities. Pp. 104-105.MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, while agreeing with the Court, in Perez v. Brownell, ante, p. 44, that there is no constitutional infirmity in 401 (e) which expatriates the citizen who votes in a foreign political election, concluded in this case that 401 (g) lies beyond the power of Congress to enact. Pp. 105-114. For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, joined by MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, see post, p. 114.Osmond K. Fraenkel argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.Oscar H. Davis argued the cause for respondents on the original argument, and Solicitor General Rankin on the reargument. With them on the briefs were Warren Olney, III, then Assistant Attorney General, and J. F. Bishop. Beatrice Rosenberg was also with them on the brief on the reargument.MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER join.The petitioner in this case, a native-born American, is declared to have lost his United States citizenship and become stateless by reason of his conviction by court-martial for wartime desertion. As in Perez v. Brownell, ante, p. 44, the issue before us is whether this forfeiture of citizenship comports with the Constitution.The facts are not in dispute. In 1944 petitioner was a private in the United States Army, serving in French Morocco. On May 22, he escaped from a stockade at Casablanca, where he had been confined following a previous breach of discipline. The next day petitioner and a companion were walking along a road towards Rabat, in the general direction back to Casablanca, when an Army truck approached and stopped. A witness testified that petitioner boarded the truck willingly and that no words were spoken. In Rabat petitioner was turned over to military police. Thus ended petitioner's "desertion." He had been gone less than a day and had willingly surrendered to an officer on an Army vehicle while he was walking back towards his base. He testified that at the time he and his companion were picked up by the Army truck, "we had decided to return to the stockade. The going was tough. We had no money to speak of, and at the time we were on foot and we were getting cold and hungry." A general court-martial convicted petitioner of desertion and sentenced him to three years at hard labor, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge.In 1952 petitioner applied for a passport. His application was denied on the ground that under the provisions of Section 401 (g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended,1 he had lost his citizenship by reason of his conviction and dishonorable discharge for wartime desertion. In 1955 petitioner commenced this action in the District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen. The Government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, Chief Judge Clark dissenting. 239 F.2d 527. We granted certiorari. . Section 401 (g), the statute that decrees the forfeiture of this petitioner's citizenship, is based directly on a Civil War statute, which provided that a deserter would lose his "rights of citizenship."2 The meaning of this phrase was not clear.3 When the 1940 codification and revision of the nationality laws was prepared, the Civil War statute was amended to make it certain that what a convicted deserter would lose was nationality itself.4 In 1944 the statute was further amended to provide that a convicted deserter would lose his citizenship only if he was dismissed from the service or dishonorably discharged.5 At the same time it was provided that citizenship could be regained if the deserter was restored to active duty in wartime with the permission of the military authorities.Though these amendments were added to ameliorate the harshness of the statute,6 their combined effect produces a result that poses far graver problems than the ones that were sought to be solved. Section 401 (g) as amended now gives the military authorities complete discretion to decide who among convicted deserters shall continue to be Americans and who shall be stateless. By deciding whether to issue and execute a dishonorable discharge and whether to allow a deserter to re-enter the armed forces, the military becomes the arbiter of citizenship. And the domain given to it by Congress is not as narrow as might be supposed. Though the crime of desertion is one of the most serious in military law, it is by no means a rare event for a soldier to be convicted of this crime. The elements of desertion are simply absence from duty plus the intention not to return.7 Into this category falls a great range of conduct, which may be prompted by a variety of motives - fear, laziness, hysteria or any emotional imbalance. The offense may occur not only in combat but also in training camps for draftees in this country.8 The Solicitor General informed the Court that during World War II, according to Army estimates, approximately 21,000 soldiers and airmen were convicted of desertion and given dishonorable discharges by the sentencing courts-martial and that about 7,000 of these were actually separated from the service and thus rendered stateless when the reviewing authorities refused to remit their dishonorable discharges. Over this group of men, enlarged by whatever the corresponding figures may be for the Navy and Marines, the military has been given the power to grant or withhold citizenship. And the number of youths subject to this power could easily be enlarged simply by expanding the statute to cover crimes other than desertion. For instance, a dishonorable discharge itself might in the future be declared to be sufficient to justify forfeiture of citizenship.Three times in the past three years we have been confronted with cases presenting important questions bearing on the proper relationship between civilian and military authority in this country.9 A statute such as Section 401 (g) raises serious issues in this area, but in our view of this case it is unnecessary to deal with those problems. We conclude that the judgment in this case must be reversed for the following reasons.I.In Perez v. Brownell, supra, I expressed the principles that I believe govern the constitutional status of United States citizenship. It is my conviction that citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. The right may be voluntarily relinquished or abandoned either by express language or by language and conduct that show a renunciation of citizenship.Under these principles, this petitioner has not lost his citizenship. Desertion in wartime, though it may merit the ultimate penalty, does not necessarily signify allegiance to a foreign state. Section 401 (g) is not limited to cases of desertion to the enemy, and there is no such element in this case. This soldier committed a crime for which he should be and was punished, but he did not involve himself in any way with a foreign state. There was no dilution of his allegiance to this country. The fact that the desertion occurred on foreign soil is of no consequence. The Solicitor General acknowledged that forfeiture of citizenship would have occurred if the entire incident had transpired in this country.Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and well-being of the Nation. The citizen who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the laws safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous blow to his country. But could a citizen be deprived of his nationality for evading these basic responsibilities of citizenship? In time of war the citizen's duties include not only the military defense of the Nation but also full participation in the manifold activities of the civilian ranks. Failure to perform any of these obligations may cause the Nation serious injury, and, in appropriate circumstances, the punishing power is available to deal with derelictions of duty. But citizenship is not lost every time a duty of citizenship is shirked. And the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be. As long as a person does not voluntarily renounce or abandon his citizenship, and this petitioner has done neither, I believe his fundamental right of citizenship is secure. On this ground alone the judgment in this case should be reversed.II.Since a majority of the Court concluded in Perez v. Brownell that citizenship may be divested in the exercise of some governmental power, I deem it appropriate to state additionally why the action taken in this case exceeds constitutional limits, even under the majority's decision in Perez. The Court concluded in Perez that citizenship could be divested in the exercise of the foreign affairs power. In this case, it is urged that the war power is adequate to support the divestment of citizenship. But there is a vital difference between the two statutes that purport to implement these powers by decreeing loss of citizenship. The statute in Perez decreed loss of citizenship - so the majority concluded - to eliminate those international problems that were thought to arise by reason of a citizen's having voted in a foreign election. The statute in this case, however, is entirely different. Section 401 (g) decrees loss of citizenship for those found guilty of the crime of desertion. It is essentially like Section 401 (j) of the Nationality Act, decreeing loss of citizenship for evading the draft by remaining outside the United States.10 This provision was also before the Court in Perez, but the majority declined to consider its validity. While Section 401 (j) decrees loss of citizenship without providing any semblance of procedural due process whereby the guilt of the draft evader may be determined before the sanction is imposed, Section 401 (g), the provision in this case, accords the accused deserter at least the safeguards of an adjudication of guilt by a court-martial.The constitutional question posed by Section 401 (g) would appear to be whether or not denationalization may be inflicted as a punishment, even assuming that citizenship may be divested pursuant to some governmental power. But the Government contends that this statute does not impose a penalty and that constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to punish are therefore inapplicable. We are told this is so because a committee of Cabinet members, in recommending this legislation to the Congress, said it "technically is not a penal law."11 How simple would be the tasks of constitutional adjudication and of law generally if specific problems could be solved by inspection of the labels pasted on them! Manifestly the issue of whether Section 401 (g) is a penal law cannot be thus determined. Of course it is relevant to know the classification employed by the Cabinet Committee that played such an important role in the preparation of the Nationality Act of 1940. But it is equally relevant to know that this very committee acknowledged that Section 401 (g) was based on the provisions of the 1865 Civil War statute, which the committee itself termed "distinctly penal in character."12 Furthermore, the 1865 statute states in terms that deprivation of the rights of citizenship is "in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion ... ."13 And certainly it is relevant to know that the reason given by the Senate Committee on Immigration as to why loss of nationality under Section 401 (g) can follow desertion only after conviction by court-martial was "because the penalty is so drastic."14 Doubtless even a clear legislative classification of a statute as "non-penal" would not alter the fundamental nature of a plainly penal statute.15 With regard to Section 401 (g) the fact is that the views of the Cabinet Committee and of the Congress itself as to the nature of the statute are equivocal, and cannot possibly provide the answer to our inquiry. Determination of whether this statute is a penal law requires careful consideration.In form Section 401 (g) appears to be a regulation of nationality. The statute deals initially with the status of nationality and then specifies the conduct that will result in loss of that status. But surely form cannot provide the answer to this inquiry. A statute providing that "a person shall lose his liberty by committing bank robbery," though in form a regulation of liberty, would nonetheless be penal. Nor would its penal effect be altered by labeling it a regulation of banks or by arguing that there is a rational connection between safeguarding banks and imprisoning bank robbers. The inquiry must be directed to substance.This Court has been called upon to decide whether or not various statutes were penal ever since 1798. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386. Each time a statute has been challenged as being in conflict with the constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws,16 it has been necessary to determine whether a penal law was involved, because these provisions apply only to statutes imposing penalties.17 In deciding whether or not a law is penal, this Court has generally based its determination upon the purpose of the statute.18 If the statute imposes a disability for the purposes of punishment - that is, to reprimand the wrongdoer, to deter others, etc. - it has been considered penal.19 But a statute has been considered nonpenal if it imposes a disability, not to punish, but to accomplish some other legitimate governmental purpose.20 The Court has recognized that any statute decreeing some adversity as a consequence of certain conduct may have both a penal and a nonpenal effect. The controlling nature of such statutes normally depends on the evident purpose of the legislature. The point may be illustrated by the situation of an ordinary felon. A person who commits a bank robbery, for instance, loses his right to liberty and often his right to vote.21 If, in the exercise of the power to protect banks, both sanctions were imposed for the purpose of punishing bank robbers, the statutes authorizing both disabilities would be penal. But because the purpose of the latter statute is to designate a reasonable ground of eligibility for voting, this law is sustained as a nonpenal exercise of the power to regulate the franchise.22 The same reasoning applies to Section 401 (g). The purpose of taking away citizenship from a convicted deserter is simply to punish him. There is no other legitimate purpose that the statute could serve. Denationalization in this case is not even claimed to be a means of solving international problems, as was argued in Perez. Here the purpose is punishment, and therefore the statute is a penal law.It is urged that this statute is not a penal law but a regulatory provision authorized by the war power. It cannot be denied that Congress has power to prescribe rules governing the proper performance of military obligations, of which perhaps the most significant is the performance of one's duty when hazardous or important service is required. But a statute that prescribes the consequence that will befall one who fails to abide by these regulatory provisions is a penal law. Plainly legislation prescribing imprisonment for the crime of desertion is penal in nature. If loss of citizenship is substituted for imprisonment, it cannot fairly be said that the use of this particular sanction transforms the fundamental nature of the statute. In fact, a dishonorable discharge with consequent loss of citizenship might be the only punishment meted out by a court-martial. During World War II the threat of this punishment was explicitly communicated by the Army to soldiers in the field.23 If this statute taking away citizenship is a congressional exercise of the war power, then it cannot rationally be treated other than as a penal law, because it imposes the sanction of denationalization for the purpose of punishing transgression of a standard of conduct prescribed in the exercise of that power.The Government argues that the sanction of denationalization imposed by Section 401 (g) is not a penalty because deportation has not been so considered by this Court. While deportation is undoubtedly a harsh sanction that has a severe penal effect, this Court has in the past sustained deportation as an exercise of the sovereign's power to determine the conditions upon which an alien may reside in this country.24 For example, the statute25 authorizing deportation of an alien convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act26 was viewed, not as designed to punish him for the crime of espionage, but as an implementation of the sovereign power to exclude, from which the deporting power is derived. Mahler v. Eby, . This view of deportation may be highly fictional, but even if its validity is conceded, it is wholly inapplicable to this case. No one contends that the Government has, in addition to the power to exclude all aliens, a sweeping power to denationalize all citizens. Nor does comparison to denaturalization eliminate the penal effect of denationalization in this case. Denaturalization is not imposed to penalize the alien for having falsified his application for citizenship; if it were, it would be a punishment. Rather, it is imposed in the exercise of the power to make rules for the naturalization of aliens.27 In short, the fact that deportation and denaturalization for fraudulent procurement of citizenship may be imposed for purposes other than punishment affords no basis for saying that in this case denationalization is not a punishment.Section 401 (g) is a penal law, and we must face the question whether the Constitution permits the Congress to take away citizenship as a punishment for crime. If it is assumed that the power of Congress extends to divestment of citizenship, the problem still remains as to this statute whether denationalization is a cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.28 Since wartime desertion is punishable by death, there can be no argument that the penalty of denationalization is excessive in relation to the gravity of the crime. The question is whether this penalty subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment.At the outset, let us put to one side the death penalty as an index of the constitutional limit on punishment. Whatever the arguments may be against capital punishment, both on moral grounds and in terms of accomplishing the purposes of punishment - and they are forceful - the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and, in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the constitutional concept of cruelty. But it is equally plain that the existence of the death penalty is not a license to the Government to devise any punishment short of death within the limit of its imagination.The exact scope of the constitutional phrase "cruel and unusual" has not been detailed by this Court.29 But the basic policy reflected in these words is firmly established in the Anglo-American tradition of criminal justice. The phrase in our Constitution was taken directly from the English Declaration of Rights of 1688,30 and the principle it represents can be traced back to the Magna Carta.31 The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man. While the State has the power to punish, the Amendment stands to assure that this power be exercised within the limits of civilized standards. Fines, imprisonment and even execution may be imposed depending upon the enormity of the crime, but any technique outside the bounds of these traditional penalties is constitutionally suspect. This Court has had little occasion to give precise content to the Eighth Amendment, and, in an enlightened democracy such as ours, this is not surprising. But when the Court was confronted with a punishment of 12 years in irons at hard and painful labor imposed for the crime of falsifying public records, it did not hesitate to declare that the penalty was cruel in its excessiveness and unusual in its character. Weems v. United States, . The Court recognized in that case that the words of the Amendment are not precise,32 and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below,33 that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is instead the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights, and presumably as long as he remained in this country he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination at any time by reason of deportation.34 In short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies.35 It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious.36 The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime. It is true that several countries prescribe expatriation in the event that their nationals engage in conduct in derogation of native allegiance.37 Even statutes of this sort are generally applicable primarily to naturalized citizens. But use of denationalization as punishment for crime is an entirely different matter. The United Nations' survey of the nationality laws of 84 nations of the world reveals that only two countries, the Philippines and Turkey, impose denationalization as a penalty for desertion.38 In this country the Eighth Amendment forbids this to be done.In concluding as we do that the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress to punish by taking away citizenship, we are mindful of the gravity of the issue inevitably raised whenever the constitutionality of an Act of the National Legislature is challenged. No member of the Court believes that in this case the statute before us can be construed to avoid the issue of constitutionality. That issue confronts us, and the task of resolving it is inescapably ours. This task requires the exercise of judgment, not the reliance upon personal preferences. Courts must not consider the wisdom of statutes but neither can they sanction as being merely unwise that which the Constitution forbids.We are oath-bound to defend the Constitution. This obligation requires that congressional enactments be judged by the standards of the Constitution. The Judiciary has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. When the Government acts to take away the fundamental right of citizenship, the safeguards of the Constitution should be examined with special diligence.The provisions of the Constitution are not time-worn adages or hollow shibboleths. They are vital, living principles that authorize and limit governmental powers in our Nation. They are the rules of government. When the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is challenged in this Court, we must apply those rules. If we do not, the words of the Constitution become little more than good advice.When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. In some 81 instances since this Court was established it has determined that congressional action exceeded the bounds of the Constitution. It is so in this case.The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court for appropriate proceedings. Reversed and remanded.


The Illinois Driver Licensing Law authorizes the Secretary of State of Illinois to suspend or revoke a driver's license without preliminary hearing upon a showing by his records or other sufficient evidence that the driver's conduct falls into any of 18 enumerated categories, one of which is that the driver has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against traffic laws to a degree indicating "lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the safe operation of a motor vehicle or disrespect for the traffic laws and the safety of other persons upon the highway." ( 6-206 (a) (3)). Pursuant to this provision the Secretary issued a regulation requiring revocation in the event a driver's license is otherwise suspended three times within a 10-year period. Under the statutory scheme the Secretary must provide immediate written notice of a discretionary suspension or revocation and within 20 days of his receiving a written request from the licensee must schedule a full evidentiary hearing for a date "as early as practical," and his final decision is subject to judicial review. After the license of appellee, a truckdriver, became subject to suspension under another section of the statute, the Secretary ordered the license revoked under 6-206 (a) (3) and the corresponding rule. Without requesting an administrative hearing, appellee brought this action challenging the constitutionality of 6-206 (a) (3). A three-judge District Court, relying on Bell v. Burson, , granted appellee relief on the ground that a license cannot constitutionally be revoked under the challenged statute until after a hearing is held to determine whether the licensee meets the statutory criteria. Held: The Illinois statute, as implemented by the Secretary's regulations, is constitutionally adequate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as analyzed in Mathews v. Eldridge, . Pp. 112-116. (a) The nature of the private interest involved here (the granted license to operate a motor vehicle) is not so great as to require a departure from "the ordinary principle ... that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action," Eldridge, supra, at 343, particularly in light of statutory provisions for hardship and for holders of commercial licenses, who are those most likely to be affected by the deprival of driving privileges. P. 113. (b) The risk of an erroneous deprivation absent a prior hearing is not great and additional procedures would not significantly reduce the number of erroneous deprivations. Here the Secretary's regulations make suspension and revocation decisions largely automatic, and appellee is asserting the right to appear at a prerevocation hearing merely to argue for leniency. Pp. 113-114. (c) The requirement of a pretermination hearing in every case would impede the public interests of administrative efficiency as well as highway safety, which is promoted by the prompt removal of hazardous drivers. Bell v. Burson, supra, distinguished. Pp. 114-115. Reversed.BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 116. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 117. REHNQUIST, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Patricia Rosen, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were William J. Scott, Attorney General, and Paul J. Bargiel, Stephen R. Swofford, and Mary Stafford, Assistant Attorneys General.James O. Latturner argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Alan M. Freedman, Richard J. Hess, and Allen L. Ray.MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.The issue in this case is whether Illinois has provided constitutionally adequate procedures for suspending or revoking the license of a driver who repeatedly has been convicted of traffic offenses. The statute and administrative regulations provide for an initial summary decision based on official records, with a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation has taken effect. IThe case centers on 6-206 of the Illinois Driver Licensing Law (c. 6 of the Illinois Vehicle Code). The section is entitled "Discretionary authority to suspend or revoke license or permit." It empowers the Secretary of State to act "without preliminary hearing upon a showing by his records or other sufficient evidence" that a driver's conduct falls into any one of 18 enumerated categories. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 95 1/2, 6-206 (a) (1975). Pursuant to his rulemaking authority under this law, 6-211 (a),1 the Secretary has adopted administrative regulations that further define the bases and procedures for discretionary suspensions. These regulations generally provide for an initial summary determination based on the individual's driving record.2 The Secretary has established a comprehensive system of assigning "points" for various kinds of traffic offenses, depending on severity, to provide an objective means of evaluating driving records.One of the statutorily enumerated circumstances justifying license suspension or revocation is conviction of three moving traffic offenses within a 12-month period. 6-206 (a) (2).3 This is one of the instances where the Secretary, by regulation, has provided a method for determining the sanction according to the driver's accumulated "points."4 Another circumstance, specified in the statute, supporting suspension or revocation is where a licensee"[h]as been repeatedly involved as a driver in motor vehicle collisions or has been repeatedly convicted of offenses against laws and ordinances regulating the movement of traffic, to a degree which indicates lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the safe operation of a motor vehicle or disrespect for the traffic laws and the safety of other persons upon the highway." 6-206 (a) (3). Here again the Secretary has limited his broad statutory discretion by an administrative regulation. This regulation allows suspension or revocation, where sufficient points have been accumulated to warrant a second suspension within a 5-year period.5 The regulation concludes flatly: "A person who has been suspended thrice within a 10 year period shall be revoked."Section 6-206 (c) (1)6 requires the Secretary "immediately" to provide written notice of a discretionary suspension or revocation under this statute, but no prior hearing is required. Within 20 days of his receiving a written request from the licensee, the Secretary must schedule a full evidentiary hearing for a date "as early as practical" in either Sangamon County or Cook County, as the licensee may specify. 2-118 (a). The final decision of the Secretary after such hearing is subject to judicial review in the Illinois courts. 2-118 (e). In addition, a person whose license is suspended or revoked may obtain a restricted permit for commercial use or in case of hardship. 6-206 (c) (2) and (3).7 IIAppellee Love, a resident of Chicago, is employed as a truck-driver. His license was suspended in November 1969, under 6-206 (a) (2), for three convictions within a 12-month period. He was then convicted of a charge of driving while his license was suspended, and consequently another suspension was imposed in March 1970 pursuant to 6-303 (b). Appellee received no further citation until August 1974, when he was arrested twice for speeding. He was convicted of both charges and then received a third speeding citation in February 1975. On March 27, he was notified by letter that he would lose his driving privileges if convicted of a third offense. On March 31 appellee was convicted of the third speeding charge. On June 3, appellee received a notice that his license was revoked effective June 6.8 The stated authority for the revocation was 6-206 (a) (3); the explanation, following the language of the statute, was: "This action has been taken as a result of: Your having been repeatedly convicted of offenses against laws and ordinances regulating the movement of traffic, to a degree which indicates disrespect for the traffic laws." App. 13. Appellee, then aged 25, made no request for an administrative hearing. Instead, he filed this purported class action9 on June 5 against the Illinois Secretary of State in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. His complaint sought a declaratory judgment that 6-206 (a) (3) was unconstitutional, an injunction against enforcement of the statute, and damages. Appellee's application for a temporary restraining order was granted on condition that he apply for a hardship driving permit. He applied for that permit on June 10, and it was issued on July 25.A three-judge District Court was convened to consider appellee's claim that the Illinois statute was unconstitutional. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that a license cannot constitutionally be suspended or revoked under 6-206 (a) (3) until after a hearing is held to determine whether the licensee meets the statutory criteria of "lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the safe operation of a motor vehicle or disrespect for the traffic laws and the safety of other persons upon the highway." The court regarded such a prior hearing as mandated by this Court's decision in Bell v. Burson, . Accordingly, the court granted judgment for appellee and enjoined the Secretary of State from enforcing 6-206 (a) (3). The Secretary appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Howlett v. Love, .IIIIt is clear that the Due Process Clause applies to the deprivation of a driver's license by the State:"Suspension of issued licenses ... involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment." Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S., at 539. It is equally clear that a licensee in Illinois eventually can obtain all the safeguards procedural due process could be thought to require before a discretionary suspension or revocation becomes final. Appellee does not challenge the adequacy of the administrative hearing, noted above, available under 2-118. The only question is one of timing. This case thus presents an issue similar to that considered only last Term in Mathews v. Eldridge, , namely, "the extent to which due process requires an evidentiary hearing prior to the deprivation of some type of property interest even if such a hearing is provided thereafter." We may analyze the present case, too, in terms of the factors considered in Eldridge:"[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Id., at 335. The private interest affected by the decision here is the granted license to operate a motor vehicle. Unlike the social security recipients in Eldridge, who at least could obtain retroactive payments if their claims were subsequently sustained, a licensee is not made entirely whole if his suspension or revocation is later vacated. On the other hand, a driver's license may not be so vital and essential as are social insurance payments on which the recipient may depend for his very subsistence. See Goldberg v. Kelly, . The Illinois statute includes special provisions for hardship and for holders of commercial licenses, who are those most likely to be affected by the deprival of driving privileges. See n. 7, supra. We therefore conclude that the nature of the private interest here is not so great as to require us "to depart from the ordinary principle, established by our decisions, that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., at 343. See Arnett v. Kennedy, .Moreover, the risk of an erroneous deprivation in the absence of a prior hearing is not great. Under the Secretary's regulations, suspension and revocation decisions are largely automatic. Of course, there is the possibility of clerical error, but written objection will bring a matter of that kind to the Secretary's attention. In this case appellee had the opportunity for a full judicial hearing in connection with each of the traffic convictions on which the Secretary's decision was based. Appellee has not challenged the validity of those convictions or the adequacy of his procedural rights at the time they were determined. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 47. Since appellee does not dispute the factual basis for the Secretary's decision, he is really asserting the right to appear in person only to argue that the Secretary should show leniency and depart from his own regulations.10 Such an appearance might make the licensee feel that he has received more personal attention, but it would not serve to protect any substantive rights. We conclude that requiring additional procedures would be unlikely to have significant value in reducing the number of erroneous deprivations.Finally, the substantial public interest in administrative efficiency would be impeded by the availability of a pretermination hearing in every case. Giving licensees the choice thus automatically to obtain a delay in the effectiveness of a suspension or revocation would encourage drivers routinely to request full administrative hearings. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., at 347. Far more substantial than the administrative burden, however, is the important public interest in safety on the roads and highways, and in the prompt removal of a safety hazard. See Perez v. Campbell, , 671 (1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). This factor fully distinguishes Bell v. Burson, supra, where the "only purpose" of the Georgia statute there under consideration was "to obtain security from which to pay any judgments against the licensee resulting from the accident." 402 U.S., at 540.11 In contrast, the Illinois statute at issue in the instant case is designed to keep off the roads those drivers who are unable or unwilling to respect traffic rules and the safety of others.We conclude that the public interests present under the circumstances of this case are sufficiently visible and weighty for the State to make its summary initial decision effective without a predecision administrative hearing.The present case is a good illustration of the fact that procedural due process in the administrative setting does not always require application of the judicial model. When a governmental official is given the power to make discretionary decisions under a broad statutory standard, case-by-case decisionmaking may not be the best way to assure fairness. Here the Secretary commendably sought to define the statutory standard narrowly by the use of his rulemaking authority.12 The decision to use objective rules in this case provides drivers with more precise notice of what conduct will be sanctioned and promotes equality of treatment among similarly situated drivers. The approach taken by the District Court would have the contrary result of reducing the fairness of the system, by requiring a necessarily subjective inquiry in each case as to a driver's "disrespect" or "lack of ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care."The second count of appellee's complaint challenged 6-206 (a) (3) on the grounds of vagueness and inadequacy of standards. The three-judge court did not reach the issue. App. 22. We regard the claim, in the light of Love's record, as frivolous.The judgment of the District Court is reversed. It is so ordered.MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Raaj (film)

Raaj is a 2011 Telugu film directed by V. N. Aditya and produced under the banner of Kumar Brothers Cinema. Sumanth, Priyamani and Vimala Raman played the lead roles. Koti is the music composer for this film. It released in late February, 2011 and failed at the box office. It was later dubbed into Tamil and Malayalam under the title Maharani - The Beauty Queen. RKD Studios have bought the sole and exclusive rights of the film in Hindi & all other Northern Indian languages. Plot The story is about Raaj (Sumanth), a fashion photographer who is caught in between his wife Mythili (Priyamani) and his ex-lover Priya (Vimala Raman). Raaj chooses not to tell Mythili about Priya and finds it difficult to adjust with his wife during the early days of marriage. However, their relationship improves with time, and they finally get close. Just when things look to settle down, Priya comes back into Raaj's life unexpectedly. He's very curious about why Priya left him abruptly earlier. Priya is later kidnapped by her scorned lover (Ajay). Raaj saves her from his clutches subsequently. In an unexpected twist, it is revealed that Mythili and Priya were actually classmates in school. Raaj later uncovers Priya's ulterior motive, tells Mythili the truth, and reconciles with his wife. Cast Sumanth .... Raaj Vimala Raman .... Priya Priyamani .... Mythili Ajay .... Priya's former lover Murali Mohan Satyam Rajesh Giri Babu Soundtrack "Sootiga Chooseva" | Hemachandra, Sunitha "Andamutho Pandemuga" | Siddharth, Malavika "Kalakaaduga" | Shashikiran, Anjana Soumya "Nanne Nenu Marichipoya" | Deepu, Sravana Bhargavi "Prathi Kala Naalo" | Srikrishna, Pranavi "Bhimavaram Bulloda" | Srikrishna, Sunitha References Category:2011 films Category:2010s Telugu-language films Category:Indian films Category:Films scored by Koti Category:Films directed by V. N. Aditya


Watch Your Step

Watch Your Step may refer to: Music Watch Your Step (musical), a 1914 Irving Berlin musical Albums Watch Your Step (Raised Fist album) Watch Your Step (Ted Hawkins album), 1982 Watch Your Step, a 1980 album by Gonzalez Songs "Watch Your Step" (Bobby Parker song), 1961 "Watch Your Step" (Ted Hawkins song), 1982, on the album Watch Your Step "Watch Your Step", a 1981 single by Elvis Costello and the Attractions, which appears on the album Trust Film Watch Your Step (film), a 1922 American film starring Patsy Ruth Miller


Ahmed Mekehout

Ahmed Mekehout (born April 4, 1983) is an Algerian football player. He currently plays for JS Kabylie in the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1. Club career On July 6, 2009, Mekehout returned to CR Belouizdad after spending a season with USM Annaba. On June 16, 2011, Mekehout, along with his CR Belouizdad teammate Amine Aksas, agreed to join Saudi Arabian club Al-Qadisiyah FC on a one-year contract. International career In April 2008, Mekehout was called up to the Algerian A' National Team for 2009 African Nations Championship qualifier against Morocco. References External links DZFoot Profile Category:1983 births Category:Living people Category:People from Taher Category:Algerian footballers Category:Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players Category:CR Belouizdad players Category:MO Constantine players Category:USM Annaba players Category:Association football midfielders


Nomula, Ranga Reddy district

Nomula is a village and panchayat in Ranga Reddy district, Telangana, India. It falls under Manchal mandal. References Category:Villages in Ranga Reddy district


- Annual meetings

- Riunioni annuali


In recent years, this has been achieved through several European Commission funded projects.

In anni recenti, abbiamo raggiunto questo obiettivo attraverso diversi progetti finanziati dalla Commissione europea.


Transmission of the viruses occurs from person to person through close contact with blood or body fluids.

La trasmissione dei virus avviene da persona a persona attraverso lo stretto contatto con sangue o liquidi corporei.


Pedro Godinho, 22, died in hospital after being discovered in Canonsleigh Road, Leicester, on Sunday morning.
Ezekiel Braithwaite, of no fixed address, has been charged with murder and attempted grievous bodily harm.
Taome Stabanner, 21, of Rowena Court, Mountsorrel, has been charged with assisting an offender.
Both are due to appear at Leicester Magistrates' Court later.
Mr Godinho's cousin, Rafael Godinho, said on behalf of the family: "Pedro was sadly taken from us. He was only 22-years-old, with a promising life ahead of him.
"At this time, the family is working closely with Leicestershire Police.
"Anybody who knows him would tell you what a good heart he had, he'd be the one to give you the shirt off his back."

A 19-year-old man has been charged with murder after another man was found fatally stabbed after an attack in a residential car park.


Several Australian bars have dumped Coopers Brewery after it was featured by religious group the Bible Society.
The video shows two MPs debating their opposing views on same-sex marriage - which is not legal in Australia - as they clutch Coopers beers.
It has led to claims Coopers is against marriage equality, a claim it denies.
The backlash has gathered pace in recent days and, by Tuesday, a string of drinking spots in favour of same-sex marriage had boycotted the brand.
The Bible Society posted the "Keeping It Light" video on Thursday. It features conservative MPs Tim Wilson (for same-sex marriage) and Andrew Hastie (against) debating the issue in what they call a "civil and respectful way".
Coopers has since claimed it "did not give permission" to be included in the video. However, the brand recently celebrated the Bible Society's 200-year anniversary with a commemorative beer featuring Bible verses.
In the video, Mr Wilson argues: "I believe that it would be sensible to change the act that deals with issues around civil marriage to include two people regardless of their gender."
Mr Hastie counters: "I'm for retaining the current definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman."
Despite Mr Wilson's inclusion, critics interpreted the video as one-sided. One commentator said Coopers risked sponsoring a "political act by a religious organisation", while another said "homophobia lite is still homophobia".
"I have respected Coopers all my life, and it was crushing to realise that as a queer person, they don't respect me," wrote Chloe Sargeant for the Special Broadcasting Service.
Opposition to the video has picked up steam since the weekend. By Tuesday, at least eight drinking spots in Sydney and Melbourne had publicly declared they would not stock Coopers. One widely shared video showed two people throwing full bottles in the bin.
Luke Hiscox, from Sydney's Union Hotel, which plans to take Coopers off tap, said people were upset by the phrase "keeping it light".
"That irks people because for them it's not in the slightest a light topic," he told the BBC.
"I don't think they really realised what they were saying."
Another venue, The Old Bar in Melbourne, said it would boycott Coopers because it was "very obvious that our values are at odds".
In a statement, Cooper said it was not "trying to push a religious message" with its commemorative beer range. It maintained it had not sponsored the video.
"We respect the beliefs of our community and do not wish to try and change them," the company said.
In a subsequent statement, it said it had cancelled the release of its Bible Society commemorative cans and would be joining Australian Marriage Equality. ""Our company supports marriage equality," Director of Corporate Affairs Melanie Cooper said.
Bible Society chief executive Greg Clarke said the video sought to have a "civil conversation on a serious issue".
"At first I was surprised the reaction was so immediate and extreme, but then on reflection [I] wasn't surprised because this really seems to be how social media works at the moment,"  he told the BBC.
Mr Wilson has described the boycott as absurd, saying it only proves the value of the discussion.
"I'm disappointed Coopers appears to have distanced themselves from a sensible conversation that they should be proud to align themselves with," he told news.com.au.
Advertising commentator Jane Caro agreed the video was not promoting a view. She said same-sex marriage advocates were often suspicious of religious messaging.
"They have lost patience and lost tolerance for the idea that there should be mutual respect on both sides," Ms Caro told the BBC.
"I think Coopers have probably inadvertently found themselves in the eye of the storm."

Australia's largest independent beer company has found itself at the centre of a boycott over a video discussing same-sex marriage.


Operators Serco said it was a "peaceful protest" and it was talking to the women involved.
Two members of staff had earlier been suspended following allegations of abuse.
Undercover filming by Channel 4 News had shown staff referring to inmates as "animals", "beasties" and "bitches".
The facility houses up to 400 women under threat of deportation.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, Home Office Minister Karen Bradley told MPs Serco "immediately suspended" one member of staff and then another after seeing the footage.
"The company has also commissioned an independent review of its culture and staffing at Yarl's Wood," she said.
Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has called for an independent inquiry into conditions at the centre.

About a dozen female detainees at Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire were involved in a "small" protest on Tuesday night.


Vern Cotter names his squad for the Championship on Tuesday, three months after a 35-34 quarter-final defeat.
Referee Craig Joubert awarded the Wallabies a late penalty that replays suggested was an incorrect decision.
"You feel you're over it and then you see something and it brings it all back," Hogg told BBC Scotland.
"I was watching something on the TV a couple of weeks ago about the legacy of the World Cup and when us going out came up, it just brought back horrible memories.  It was bitterly disappointing."
Hogg is set to be included in a squad missing the injured Harlequins wing Tim Visser - ruled out of at least the first two games - and flanker Alasdair Strokosch, who retired from Test rugby after the World Cup.
Another injury concern is Glasgow centre Mark Bennett, who was due to see a specialist on Monday to determine whether he needs an operation on his injured shoulder.
The involvement of Warriors pair Ryan Wilson and Tim Swinson could hinge on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings against them following the European Champions Cup loss at Northampton.
But club-mate and fellow midfielder Alex Dunbar could return to the Scotland fold after missing the World Cup with the after-effects of a knee injury sustained in training during last year's Six Nations.
After the Calcutta Cup opener against England at Murrayfield on 6 February, Scotland travel to Cardiff - one of three away fixtures in this year's campaign - to face Wales in their second match a week later.
Hogg says the squad will be desperate to banish the memories of not only their World Cup despair, but the embarrassment of a Six Nations whitewash last year.
"It is another challenge for us now, but we can take immense confidence from the World Cup," said the 23-year-old, who has only tasted victory in three of his 19 Six Nations matches since his 2012 debut.
"If I'm fortunate enough to be picked, hopefully we can produce something special in this Six Nations. England first up at Murrayfield is exactly what you want and it would be great to be part of that.
"Getting a good couple of wins early doors would give us immense confidence going forward, and we'd be in the tournament if that happens.
"We have let ourselves down in the last couple of Six Nations but we are looking forward to it."
Hogg and his Glasgow team-mates will be hoping that joining up with Scotland provides a catalyst for rediscovering their World Cup form.
Four successive defeats since Christmas have seen them slip to eighth in the Pro 12 table and effectively exit the European Champions Cup, after a third pool defeat on Sunday to Northampton.
"Our target was to become the number one team in Europe and we've fallen short again," Hogg noted.
"It's fine and well having good performances here and there but it's wins that we need.  Europe is the be-all and end-all of club rugby so we're bitterly disappointed to no longer be part of it."
After their final Champions Cup game against pool leaders Racing 92 at Kilmarnock's Rugby Park on Saturday, Glasgow - eight points off the Pro 12 play-off positions, but with two games in hand - must turn their attention to restoring last season's lustre.
"We're defending champions although to be honest we have not been playing like it lately," Hogg added.  "For us it's a challenge to get back up to where we belong."

Scotland full-back Stuart Hogg says memories of their controversial World Cup exit to Australia are still raw as they prepare for the Six Nations.


Habyarimana Mucebo, a senior member of the Rwandan FDLR rebel group, was captured in Rutshuru, north-eastern DR Congo.
Members of the FDLR fled into DR Congo after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
The slaughter of some 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus sparked years of unrest in the region.
Mr Mucebo, the FDLR intelligence chief, has been taken into custody for interrogation, the army says.
Most senior figures of the group are wanted by Rwanda for their alleged role in the 1994 killings.
Mr Mucebo's arrest is not linked to genocide charges as initially reported.
Congolese officials accuse him of links to atrocities blamed on the FDLR.
For many years, the Hutu rebel group had become a source of instability in DR Congo's North Kivu province.
Rwanda has sent troops and militias into DR Congo on several occasions since the genocide, saying they were going after the FDLR.

A Rwandan Hutu rebel commander wanted for atrocities committed on Congolese soil has been arrested in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.


Stuart Clancy, a Conservative councillor on Broadland District Council in Norfolk, was arrested by police in September 2014.
The Crown Prosecution Service said there was "insufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction for any offence".
The council, on which he represents Taverham South ward, welcomed the news.
"We are very pleased that this issue has been resolved and Councillor Clancy can now put this difficult period behind him," said a spokeswoman.
The council said the investigation was not connected to his council work.

No further action is to be taken against a deputy council leader arrested on suspicion of fraud.


Sports minister Dayasiri Jayasekara told Sri Lanka's players they were too fat after they failed to reach the Champions Trophy semi-finals.
Malinga, 33, responded by saying he did not care for criticism "from those who are simply warming chairs".
"What does a monkey know about a parrot's nesting hollow?" he added.
"This is like a monkey getting into a parrot's nest and talking about it."
Jayasekara said Malinga's comments were a breach of his contract with the country's cricket board.
"In my criticism of the appalling fitness levels of our players, I did not name Malinga, but he has chosen to put the hat on and attack me publicly," he added.
Malinga won the Indian Premier League title with the Mumbai Indians before the Champions Trophy, and missed Sri Lanka's high-altitude training.
Jayasekara spoke out after Pakistan skipper Sarfraz Ahmed was dropped twice off the bowling of Malinga as Sri Lanka failed to progress from their Champions Trophy group.
"The typical body fat amounts for a cricketer should be about 16%, but most of our players have over 25%," he said.
"I want the results analysed and in future no-one will be included in a national squad if they are above 16%."

Fast bowler Lasith Malinga is being investigated by Sri Lanka's cricket board after comparing the country's sports minister to a monkey.