Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1981

Rostker v. Goldberg

453 U.S. 57 | 101 S. Ct. 2646 | 69 L. Ed. 2d 478 | 1981 U.S. LEXIS 126 | 49 U.S.L.W. 4798

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Rostker upheld male-only draft registration because Congress could reasonably tie registration to a combat-focused draft from which women were then excluded, with exceptional deference to Congress's military judgments.

Background

The Military Selective Service Act authorized the President to require registration of male citizens and male resident aliens between ages 18 and 26. Registration existed solely to create a pool for any later military draft. In 1980, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter sought to reactivate registration and asked Congress to authorize registration and conscription of women as well as men.

Congress funded renewed registration, but only for men. After extensive hearings and debate, it declined to amend the Act to include women. Congress reasoned that a future mobilization would chiefly require combat troops; women were then barred by statute or military policy from combat assignments; and the military's limited need for women in noncombat positions could be met through volunteers without compromising military flexibility.

Male registrants brought a Fifth Amendment equal-protection challenge. A three-judge District Court held the male-only registration provision unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny associated with Craig v. Boren. It concluded that registering women would increase military flexibility and that Congress had insufficiently justified assigning the registration burden exclusively to men. The court permanently enjoined registration. The Supreme Court stayed that injunction and then reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Court should apply ordinary gender-based equal-protection scrutiny without special regard for Congress's military judgments, or instead apply rational-basis review because the statute concerns national defense.

Holding

The Court declined to adopt a separate, formulaic level of scrutiny for this setting, but held that substantial judicial deference is due to Congress's considered judgments when it acts under its express constitutional authority to raise and regulate the armed forces.

Reasoning

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates an equal-protection constraint against unjustifiable federal discrimination, and Congress does not escape constitutional limits merely because it acts in the military sphere. But Congress's Article I authority to raise and support armies and regulate the land and naval forces is broad, while courts lack institutional competence to second-guess professional judgments about force composition, training, mobilization, and military readiness.

Registration could not be separated from military affairs simply because registrants were civilians. Registration was the first step toward induction and had no independent civilian purpose. Therefore, the constitutionality of the registration system necessarily depended on Congress's judgments about the personnel needed in a future draft.

The Court rejected the Government's invitation to reduce review to rational-basis scrutiny, but also rejected a mechanical application of doctrinal labels. The relevant inquiry was whether Congress's studied choice between male-only registration and registration of both sexes denied equal protection, while giving appropriate weight to Congress's constitutionally assigned responsibility for national defense.

Issue #2

Whether the Military Selective Service Act violated the Fifth Amendment by requiring registration of men but not women.

Holding

No. The male-only registration requirement was constitutional because women and men were not similarly situated for purposes of a draft designed principally to supply combat troops, from which women were excluded.

Reasoning

Congress did not act reflexively or rely on an unexamined stereotype. It considered the question of women's registration in hearings, committee reports, and floor debates, rejected proposed changes, and formally adopted findings explaining its decision. That extensive consideration supported giving weight to Congress's stated military judgment.

Congress linked registration to the likely character of a later mobilization. It found that the principal personnel need in a wartime draft would be combat replacements. Because registration existed only to prepare for induction, Congress could assess the registration pool according to the anticipated needs of a draft rather than as an isolated civilian obligation.

Women were excluded from combat assignments by statute in the Navy and Air Force and by established policy in the Army and Marine Corps. Congress expressly reaffirmed those restrictions. Given the purpose of registration to prepare a pool for combat troops, the combat restrictions meant that men and women were not similarly situated for this purpose.

Congress permissibly concluded that drafting a relatively small number of women for noncombat roles was not worth the administrative and operational burdens. It found that women volunteers could meet the need for female personnel and that reserving large numbers of noncombat posts for combat-qualified men preserved commanders' ability to rotate and redeploy personnel quickly.

The Executive Branch's recommendation to register women did not compel a different result. The administration acknowledged that its proposal rested largely on equity rather than military necessity. Congress, not military officials or the President, held the constitutional authority to choose among reasonable means of raising and supporting armies, and it could give priority to its assessment of military need.

Dissents

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White, joined by Justice Brennan, assumed that the exclusion of women from combat positions was constitutional. But he rejected the majority's premise that every noncombat job in a mobilized military had to be occupied by a combat-qualified man who could be moved into combat. In his view, neither the congressional record nor common experience supported treating all military positions as combat-rotation posts.

He also disputed the conclusion that volunteers would fill every position for which women were eligible. Defense Department officials estimated that the services could productively use about 80,000 female conscripts during the first six months of a major mobilization, after accounting for women volunteers. At minimum, Justice White would have remanded for further findings on that factual question.

Because a substantial number of military jobs could be performed by women without impairing combat readiness, and because women volunteers could not reliably fill all of those positions, Justice White saw no adequate constitutional justification for imposing registration and possible conscription on men alone. Administrative convenience could not justify such categorical sex discrimination.

Justice Marshall

Reasoning

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, maintained that Craig v. Boren required the Government to prove that excluding women from registration was substantially related to the important objective of maintaining an effective military. Although Congress deserved respect in military affairs, deference could not displace the Court's duty to enforce the Fifth Amendment's equal-protection guarantee.

The validity of restrictions on women in combat did not itself justify excluding women from registration. Those restrictions would remain in place even if women registered, and registering women would not require assigning them to combat. The relevant question was whether the Government showed that a gender-neutral registration system would materially impair its ability to prepare for a draft.

The record showed that women could fill at least 80,000 of the 650,000 positions expected to be needed in a major mobilization. The Defense Department and the service chiefs supported women's registration because women could perform many essential support functions and because a registration system would preserve access to qualified women if volunteers proved insufficient.

Justice Marshall criticized the majority for treating registration as indistinguishable from a hypothetical all-combat draft. Registration is an inventory of available personnel, while any future draft would require separate congressional authorization and could be structured to call only the number of women the military actually needed. Congress could draft men and women in different numbers where genuine military requirements justified that distinction.

The congressional findings, in Justice Marshall's view, established at most that drafting very large numbers of women could burden training systems and reduce flexibility. They did not establish that drafting a limited number of women would do so. By supplying factual conclusions Congress had not actually made and treating deference as decisive, the Court upheld a classification that was not shown to be substantially related to military effectiveness.