Johnson v. Robison

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Johnson v. Robison
ArgueDate=December 11
ArgueYear=1973
DecideDate=March 4
DecideYear=1974
FullName=Johnson, Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, et al. v. Robison
USVol=415
USPage=361
Citation=
Prior=District Court for the District of Massachusetts decision for Robison, 352 F. Supp. 848;
Subsequent=
Holding=Providing different benefits for combat veterans and conscientious objectors does not violate equal protection or the free exercise clause.
SCOTUS=1972-1975
Majority=Brennan
JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist
Dissent=Douglas
JoinDissent=
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=U.S. Const., amends. I, XIV

"Johnson v. Robison", ussc|415|361|1974 was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the Veterans' Administrations' allocation of greater educational benefits to combat veterans than conscientious objectors was consistent with the United States Constitution. Robison, a conscientious objector, argued that such unequal benefits violated his 14th Amendment right to Equal Protection and his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The court rejected both arguments.

The court reasoned that a rational basis existed to give combat veterans better benefits than those who objected for religious reasons: namely, encouraging people to participate in the armed forces as soldiers. The court reasoned that the increased disruption and longer commitment for soldiers justified disparate allocation of benefits. As to free exercise, the court held that the withholding of benefits had only an incidental burden, if any, on religious exercise, that that burden was not intended, and that it was justified by the substantial government interest in raising an army.