Rostker v. Goldberg

1981-06-25

Headline: Court upholds law allowing only men to be required to register for the draft, ruling Congress reasonably tied male-only registration to combat needs and existing exclusions for women.

Holding: The Court reversed the District Court and held that Congress permissibly authorized registration of men, not women, because registration was linked to preparing combat-ready draftees and women were excluded from combat roles.

Real World Impact:

Allows government to require only men to register for the draft.
Leaves women excluded from registration absent new congressional action.
Declares registration constitutional and emphasizes deference to Congress on military matters.

Topics: draft registration, gender discrimination, military policy, women in military

Summary

Background

A group of men who were subject to draft registration sued after President Carter reactivated the Selective Service registration in 1980. Congress debated whether to include women and ultimately funded registration only for men. A three-judge District Court found the male-only registration unconstitutional and enjoined registration, but that order was stayed and registration proceeded; the case reached this Court for review.

Reasoning

The Court emphasized strong deference to Congress on military matters and noted Congress extensively considered the issue in hearings and reports. Congress tied registration to preparing a pool for a possible draft that it expected would emphasize combat replacements. Because statutes and military policy then excluded women from combat assignments, the Court concluded men and women were not similarly situated for the purpose of a draft. On that basis the Court reversed the District Court and upheld the Act’s male-only registration.

Real world impact

The ruling allows the Government to require registration of men but not women under the existing law. Registration remains a preparatory step for any future draft; actual conscription would require separate congressional action. Congress and the military retain the authority to change who must register, and the decision affirms that military judgments and mobilization planning weigh heavily in such choices.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices White and Marshall dissented, arguing the record showed the military could and would need substantial numbers of women in a mobilization and that excluding all women from registration fails the heightened equal-protection review.