T HIS ARTICLE WILL ANALYZE Selective Service System procedures for resolving a registrant's claim for conscientious objector classification' and the nature of judicial review available after an adverse decision. I conclude that this process is constitutionally defective, and I propose the remedy of expanded judicial review of the merits of the conscientious objector claim. The passage of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 has made several important changes in an older law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court despite its severe limitations on the rights of registrants, restricting those rights even further.2 Hopefully passage of the Act will provide occasion for the Supreme Court not only to scrutinize the changes themselves, but also to reconsider its position on the issues at stake when Selective Service classification decisions are challenged. Under the new Act, judicial review is available only to a registrant who refuses to submit to induction when ordered to do so and who raises the defective classification as a defense in a consequent criminal proceeding.3 The scope of review is extremely narrow: The classification is to be upheld if it is supported by "any basis in fact."4 The Supreme Court has made clear that because a conscientious objector must demonstrate his sincerity, a local board can always deny his classification with a "basis in fact," at least if the registrant appears before the local board, simply by finding that his "appearance [is] one of unreliability."" Thus, under