Attornies for Massachusetts conscientious objectors will request temporary restraining orders (TRO) in U.S. District Court this morning to prevent the C.O.s from being called for alternate service.

The request is the first step in a class action suit, O'Toole v. Tarr, which contends that the parallel induction rule was violated by the Selective Service System (SSS) when C.O.s were ordered to report for work while no men classified 1-A or 1-AO were being inducted.

The case will be heard before Andrew A. Caffrey, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Boston.

Tuesday's ruling in favor of the C.O.'s in Washington on legal grounds almost identical to those in the Massachusetts suit will provide an important precedent for this morning's hearing.

United States attorney Robert Collings said the government will definitely oppose a request for restraining orders unless the request is only for Lawrence O'Toole, the named plaintiff, who has been ordered to report for work Monday.

Lawrence E. Katz, attorney for the C.O.s, said yesterday that the request for TROs would include all members of the class.

Washington

In Washington, Federal Judge Thomas A. Flanery cancelled work orders issued to about 65 men Tuesday.

In an additional ruling Flanery found the SSS in violation of prepublication laws requiring that any new draft regulation be printed in The Federal Register 30 days before it becomes effective.

The Washington ruling--if it is followed by similar rulings in other states--will affect about 15,000 C.O.'s nationwide.

California

A clerk for Alphonso J. Zirpoli, the judge hearing the C.O. suit in California, said that judges in general do not like to render inconsistent decisions and that he expects the Washington ruling to carry great weight in future cases.

Kenneth J. Coffey, press director for the SSS, said that SSS lawyers were studying the opinion but no decision has been made yet as to whether or not to appeal the ruling.