No. 20-928

National Coalition For Men, et al. v. Selective Service System, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (4)Relisted (3)
Tags: combat-roles constitutional-challenge equal-protection fifth-amendment gender-discrimination military-draft rostker-v-goldberg selective-service
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-06-03 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the federal requirement that men but not women register for the Selective Service, authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 3802(a), violates the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), this Court held that the Military Selective Service Act, under which men—but not women—are required to register for the draft, withstood constitutional challenge because women at that time were categorically prohibited from serving in combat roles. Because the primary purpose of registration was to replace combat troops, the Court explained, “[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration.” Id. at 77. In 2013, the Department of Defense lifted the ban on women in combat. But the obligation to register remains limited to men. The question presented is whether, in light of the Department of Defense having lifted the ban on women in combat, this Court should overrule Rostker and hold that the federal requirement that men but not women register for the Selective Service, authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 3802(a), violates the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. (i)

Docket Entries

2021-06-07
Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kavanaugh join, respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek.pdf'>Opinion</a>)
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.
2021-05-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.
2021-05-14
Rescheduled.
2021-05-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.
2021-04-27
Reply of petitioners National Coalition For Men, et al. filed.
2021-04-14
Brief of respondents Selective Service System, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-03-12
Brief amici curiae of Center for Military Readiness, et al filed.
2021-02-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 14, 2021.
2021-02-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 15, 2021 to April 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-02-11
Brief amici curiae of National Organization for Women Foundation, et al. filed.
2021-02-11
Brief amici curiae of Modern Military Association of America, et al. filed.
2021-02-10
Brief amici curiae of General Michael Hayden, et al. filed.
2021-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 15, 2021.
2021-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 11, 2021 to March 15, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 11, 2021)

Attorneys

Center for Military Readiness, et al
William Allen WoodruffThe Woodruff Law Firm, Amicus
William Allen WoodruffThe Woodruff Law Firm, Amicus
General Michael Hayden, et al.
Lindsay C. HarrisonJenner & Block, LLP, Amicus
Lindsay C. HarrisonJenner & Block, LLP, Amicus
Modern Military Association of America, et al.
Jaime Ann SantosGoodwin Procter LLP, Amicus
Jaime Ann SantosGoodwin Procter LLP, Amicus
National Coalition For Men, et al.
Ria Tabacco MarACLU, Petitioner
Ria Tabacco MarACLU, Petitioner
National Organization for Women Foundation, Women’s Law Project, Gender Justice, Women’s Law Center of Maryland, Inc., KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change
Thomas Mark BondyOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Thomas Mark BondyOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Amicus
Selective Service System, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent