Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Background  





2 Arguments  





3 Ruling  





4 Appeal  





5 Supreme Court  





6 See also  





7 References  














National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System
CourtUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Full case nameNational Coalition for Men, et al. v. Selective Service System, et al.
DecidedFebruary 22, 2019 (2019-02-22)
Docket nos.4:16-cv-03362
DefendantsSelective Service System; Donald Benton, as Director of Selective Service System
Counsel for plaintiffsMarc Angelucci
PlaintiffsNational Coalition for Men; James Lesmeister, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; Anthony Davis
Holding
Requiring only men to register for the draft violated their Fifth Amendment right.
Court membership
Judge sittingGray H. Miller
Case opinions
Transcript
National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameNational Coalition for Men, et al. v. Selective Service System, et al.
DecidedAugust 13, 2020
Docket nos.19-20272
Holding
The district court's judgment is reversed because it directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s holding in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 78–79 (1981), and only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.
Court membership
Judges sittingJacques L. Wiener Jr., Carl E. Stewart, and Don Willett
Case opinions
Opinion
Per curiam

National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System was a court case that was first decided in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on February 22, 2019, declaring that requiring men but disallowing women to register for the draft for military service in the United States was unconstitutional. The ruling did not specify which actions the government needed to take to resolve the conflict with the constitution (e.g., whether to abolish the draft registration requirement or apply it in a gender-neutral manner).[1] That ruling was reversed by the Fifth Circuit.

In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision by the Court of Appeals.[2] In an opinion on supporting the denial, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh, stated that while there was a constitutional argument about discrimination on sex on the current draft, they agreed to decline because Congress was actively evaluating removing the male-only requirement of the draft through the 2016 Commission, and that "the Court's longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue".[3]

Background[edit]

In the United States, men between the ages of 18 and 25 and residing in the country, with limited exceptions, are required to sign up and maintain their registration in the Selective Service System, established by the Military Selective Service Act. Failure to register or maintain that can lead to fines and prison, and prevents one from several government benefits such as federally backed student loans or employment in the federal sector. Women, who are not required to serve involuntarily, are not required to register. At the time it was established, the military did not allow women to serve in combat roles. The law was challenged on the basis of gender discrimination, leading to the Supreme Court case Rostker v. Goldberg. In that 1981 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional on the basis that women were restricted from serving in combat roles.

Oral Argument before the 9th Circuit in the appeal of the initial dismissal of the case.

Between 2013 and 2015, the Pentagon abolished their restrictions on women voluntarily serving in combat roles.[1] Based on these changes, the National Coalition for Men, a non-profit men's rights organization, filed a lawsuit against the Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, arguing that with the Pentagon's change in female participation in combat roles, the rationale behind Rostker no longer applied, and the male-only requirement of the Selective Service System was gender-discriminatory.[4] In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case back to the district court.[5] The case was later moved to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the 5th Circuit.[6]

In 2016, through a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the Congress created the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, an independent bipartisan advisory commission tasked with evaluating the Selective Service System and recommending whether women should be required to register with the Selective Service, or potentially do away with the Selective Service System to avoid the gender inequality issue.[7][8] On January 23, 2019, the Commission released an interim report outlining the various options.[9] On March 25, 2020, after holding various public hearings, the Commission issued its final report, recommending that as long as the Selective Service System exists, both men and women should be subject to mandatory draft registration.[7][8]

Arguments[edit]

The National Coalition for Men argued in part: "Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more."[10] Opponents of the status quo also argued that current conscription laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution via reverse incorporation because the law treats men and women differently.

Ruling[edit]

On February 22, 2019, Judge Gray H. Miller issued a declaratory judgement that the male-only registration requirement of the MSSA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[10] since the restrictions on women serving in combat roles in the military, which were present at the time of the decision in Rostker, no longer applied and men and women are, therefore, similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.[11][12]

Appeal[edit]

The ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[13] The Eagle Forum filed an amicus curiae brief supporting continued registration of men for the draft, opposing requiring women to register, and asking the Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court decision. A coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, American Civil Liberties Union, 9to5 National Association of Working Women, A Better Balance, Gender Justice, KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, National Organization for Women Foundation, National Women’s Law Center, Women’s Law Center of Maryland, and Women’s Law Project filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the Court of Appeals should uphold the District Court finding that the current Military Selective Service Act is unconstitutional.[14] Oral arguments on the appeal were held March 3, 2020, before a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals at Tulane Law School in New Orleans.[15] A decision by the panel was issued on August 13, 2020, reversing the District Court judgment on the grounds that it amounted to overturning the Supreme Court's precedent from Rostker, which only the Supreme Court has the authority to do.[16]

Supreme Court[edit]

Harry Crouch, President of the National Coalition for Men, announced that NCFM was "exploring its options, including filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court".[17] On January 8, 2021, NCFM, represented by the ACLU and cooperating counsel from Hogan Lovells, filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.[18] The case was docketed in the Supreme Court as case No. 20-928.[19]

The Supreme Court declined to review the case in June 2021.[2] In an opinion on supporting the denial, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh, stated that while there was a constitutional argument about discrimination on sex on the current draft, they agreed to decline because Congress was actively evaluating removing the male-only requirement of the draft through the 2016 Commission, and that "the Court's longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue".[3]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Tyler Pager (February 24, 2019). "Drafting Only Men for the Military Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Liptak, Adam (June 7, 2021). "Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Limiting Military Draft to Men". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
  • ^ a b Higgens, Tucker (June 7, 2021). "Supreme Court won't hear case arguing military draft registration discriminates against men". CNBC. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
  • ^ "National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System (4:16-cv-03362) Document #1: COMPLAINT". April 4, 2013.
  • ^ National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service (2016) 19 February 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir.
  • ^ "United States Courts Opinions. United States District Court Southern District of Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 57 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, DENYING MOTION for leave to transfer venue" (PDF). U.S. Government Publishing Office. August 16, 2017. Retrieved September 4, 2017.
  • ^ a b Max Z. Margulies (March 27, 2020). "The National Commission on Public Service Is Right to Endorse Women's Draft Registration". Lawfare.
  • ^ a b Inspired to Serve: The Final Report of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (PDF) (Report). National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. March 2020.
  • ^ National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (January 23, 2019). "National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service: Interim Report". inspire2serve.gov.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • ^ a b "Judge Rules Male-Only Draft Violates Constitution".
  • ^ "United States Courts Opinions. United States District Court Southern District of Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" (PDF). February 22, 2019.
  • ^ Korte, Gregory (February 24, 2019). "With women in combat roles, a federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional". USA Today. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
  • ^ "Selective Service Defends Men-Only Draft In 5th Circ". Law360. August 15, 2019. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  • ^ "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; 9TO5, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING WOMEN; A BETTER BALANCE; GENDER JUSTICE; KWH LAW CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND CHANGE; NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN FOUNDATION; NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; WOMEN'S LAW CENTER OF MARYLAND; and WOMEN'S LAW PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES" (PDF). National Women's Law Center. October 18, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 19, 2020. Retrieved July 19, 2020.
  • ^ Hasbrouck, Edward. "Appeals Court hears arguments on the Constitutionality of draft registration". Resisters.info. Retrieved March 6, 2020.
  • ^ National Coalition for Men vs. Selective Service System, No. 19-20272 (5th Cir. 2020-08-13).
  • ^ Crouch, Harry. "National Coalition For Men". Retrieved August 18, 2020.
  • ^ Hasbrouck, Edward (January 8, 2021). "Supreme Court asked to review Constitutionality of current male-only draft registration requirement". Antiwar.com. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
  • ^ "National Coalition For Men, et al., Petitioners v. Selective Service System, et al". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved January 12, 2021.

  • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Coalition_for_Men_v._Selective_Service_System&oldid=1223456399"

    Categories: 
    2019 in United States case law
    2019 in Texas
    Sexism in the United States
    February 2019 events in the United States
    United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas cases
    Conscription in the United States
    Conscription law
    United States men's rights case law
    Gender issues in the military
    Hidden categories: 
    CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list
    Articles with short description
    Short description matches Wikidata
    Use American English from November 2019
    All Wikipedia articles written in American English
    Use mdy dates from November 2019
    Articles containing Latin-language text
     



    This page was last edited on 12 May 2024, at 07:28 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki