Rostker v. Goldberg
453 U.S. 57 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gender-based classification enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise and support armies does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if men and women are not similarly situated for the purposes of the law, and the classification is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Facts:
- The Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) empowers the President to require male citizens between 18 and 26 to register for potential military conscription.
- Registration under the MSSA was discontinued in 1975.
- In early 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter decided to reactivate the draft registration process.
- President Carter asked Congress to amend the MSSA to permit the registration and conscription of women as well as men.
- After extensive hearings and debate, Congress declined to amend the MSSA to include women.
- Congress allocated funds sufficient only for the registration of males.
- On July 2, 1980, President Carter, by proclamation, ordered the registration of specified groups of young men, to commence on July 21, 1980.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1971, several men filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the MSSA on multiple grounds, including gender discrimination.
- The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the gender discrimination claim to the District Court.
- A three-judge District Court was convened in 1974 to hear the claim.
- The case remained dormant for several years until registration was reactivated in 1980.
- On July 1, 1980, the District Court certified a plaintiff class of all men subject to registration.
- On July 18, 1980, the District Court found that the MSSA's male-only registration violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and issued a permanent injunction against the registration.
- The Director of Selective Service, the appellant, filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and Justice Brennan, as Circuit Justice, stayed the injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Military Selective Service Act, which authorizes the President to require only males to register for the draft, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No, the Military Selective Service Act's male-only registration requirement does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Constitution requires great deference to congressional decisions in the area of national defense and military affairs. Because the purpose of registration is to facilitate a draft for combat troops, and women are statutorily and by policy excluded from combat roles, men and women are not similarly situated for this purpose. Congress's decision to exempt women was not an 'accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking,' but a considered legislative choice closely and substantially related to the government's important interest in raising and supporting armies.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes, the Military Selective Service Act's male-only registration requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The record does not support the majority's conclusion that all noncombat military positions could be filled by volunteers during a mobilization. The Defense Department's own estimates indicated that at least 80,000 women would need to be conscripted for noncombat roles for which they are eligible. Administrative convenience is not a sufficient justification for the outright gender-based discrimination of registering and conscripting men but not women.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the Military Selective Service Act's male-only registration requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The majority misapplies the heightened scrutiny test by focusing on whether a gender-neutral classification is necessary, rather than whether the gender-based classification is substantially related to the government's objective. The government failed to show that registering women would impede its ability to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since testimony established that at least 80,000 non-combat positions could be filled by women draftees, the complete exclusion of women from registration is unconstitutional and reinforces outdated stereotypes about the proper role of women.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the principle of extreme judicial deference to Congress in the realm of military affairs, even when a law is challenged on equal protection grounds. By holding that men and women are not 'similarly situated' due to combat restrictions, the Court effectively lowered the bar for the government to justify gender-based discrimination under intermediate scrutiny in a military context. The ruling insulates congressional military personnel decisions from rigorous judicial review, signaling that courts will be highly reluctant to interfere with legislative judgments regarding the composition and regulation of the armed forces. It remains a key precedent for cases involving equal protection challenges to military policies.
