Federal judge rules male-only draft is unconstitutional

A federal judge who ruled the Selective Service System's men-only registration unconstitutional late Friday rejected the reasoning of a 1981 Supreme Court de...

Posted: Feb 25, 2019 12:02 PM
Updated: Feb 25, 2019 1:45 PM

A federal judge who ruled the Selective Service System's men-only registration unconstitutional late Friday rejected the reasoning of a 1981 Supreme Court decision, opting for the recent women's rights rationale of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the contemporary court.

US District Court Judge Gray Miller, based in Houston, spurned the government's argument about excluding women, based partly on their interest and readiness for combat, by declaring, 'this argument smacks of archaic and overbroad generalizations about women's preferences.'

Miller said that while 'historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination,' men and women now have many similar roles.

'If there ever was a time to discuss the place of women in the Armed Services, that time has passed,' he wrote. Miller said the Selective Service had not shown that the male-only registration requirement was 'substantially related to Congress's objective of raising and supporting armies.'

Congress eliminated the draft in the early 1970s, but all men ages 18-25 are required by law to provide basic personal information to the Selective Service System.

The judge's decision, favoring a group known as National Coalition for Men and two men of registration age, would have no immediate effect. It did not block the government's current policy. Any appeal by the agency would go to the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals before it would reach the Supreme Court.

It is uncertain whether it would reach that level. The Selective Service System had urged Miller to reject the case, largely because the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, appointed by Congress, is now studying the male-only registration policy.

Irrespective of the fate of the case on appeal, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System recalls practice and precedent of another era.

The government agency relied heavily on a 1981 Supreme Court decision, Rostker v. Goldberg, that said women could be excluded from the draft because they were not 'similarly situated' with men for draft purposes. That decision highlighted the fact that women could not serve in combat.

'In the nearly four decades since Rostker, however, women's opportunities in the military have expanded dramatically,' Miller observed. 'In 2013, the Department of Defense officially lifted the ban on women in combat.'

He cited Ginsburg's majority opinions in equal rights cases since then for greater scrutiny on the military policy, the 1996 US v. Virginia and 2017 Sessions v. Morales-Santana.

'Typically, the defender of legislation that differentiates on the basis of gender must show 'at least that the challenged classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.''

He acknowledged the governmental objective of raising and supporting armies but did not accept arguments that requiring women to register might affect female enlistment 'by increasing the perception that women will be forced to serve in combat roles.'

'At its core, [the Selective Service System] argument rests on the assumption that women are significantly more combat-averse than men,' Miller wrote, adding that no evidence was offered to support that claim, which he deemed 'an ancient canard' about women.

'Further, under Rostker, the dispositive issue is whether men and women are similarly situated in regard to the draft,' Miller wrote. 'Thus, the relevant question is not what proportion of women are physically eligible for combat -- it may well be that only a small percentage of women meets the physical standards for combat positions.'

But Miller added, a similarly small percentage of men may also be eligible for combat, which would offer no reason to discriminate against women.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correct a quote from the judge's order.

West Lafayette
Overcast
45° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 42°
Feels Like: °
Kokomo
Overcast
42° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 41°
Feels Like: 36°
Rensselaer
Overcast
39° wxIcon
Hi: 48° Lo: 39°
Feels Like: 32°
Fowler
Overcast
39° wxIcon
Hi: 48° Lo: 40°
Feels Like: 32°
Williamsport
Overcast
43° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 41°
Feels Like: 37°
Crawfordsville
Overcast
41° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 43°
Feels Like: 35°
Frankfort
Overcast
45° wxIcon
Hi: 51° Lo: 42°
Feels Like: 40°
Delphi
Overcast
45° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 41°
Feels Like: °
Monticello
Overcast
41° wxIcon
Hi: 48° Lo: 40°
Feels Like: 36°
Logansport
Overcast
41° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 39°
Feels Like: 36°
Dry and Cool for Remainder of Weekend.
WLFI Radar
WLFI Temps
WLFI Planner

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Confirmed Cases: 160454

Reported Deaths: 4118
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Marion25691791
Lake14023358
St. Joseph9399165
Elkhart9026137
Allen8424230
Hamilton6293114
Vanderburgh601161
Tippecanoe383615
Hendricks3337133
Porter332350
Monroe330338
Johnson3207129
Delaware303474
Clark300763
Vigo268740
Madison244996
LaPorte231760
Cass226922
Warrick199565
Kosciusko193727
Floyd183968
Howard167066
Bartholomew145358
Dubois142726
Marshall142726
Wayne135331
Grant129739
Henry129730
Boone126950
Hancock122344
Noble119135
Jackson116417
Dearborn100028
Morgan97440
Lawrence94037
Gibson91512
Daviess90234
Clinton88916
Shelby87231
LaGrange82115
Knox79510
Harrison78324
Putnam75616
Posey7556
DeKalb74511
Fayette73218
Jasper6435
Miami6425
Steuben6408
Montgomery60422
White59915
Greene55838
Scott53413
Decatur51739
Adams5107
Whitley4696
Ripley4668
Clay4567
Sullivan45214
Wells44211
Starke4328
Wabash4329
Huntington4215
Orange41725
Spencer4046
Washington3843
Franklin37925
Jennings37313
Randolph37210
Fulton3714
Jefferson3455
Pike34018
Perry33314
Carroll33213
Jay3256
Fountain3193
Tipton28023
Vermillion2601
Parke2464
Blackford2313
Newton23011
Rush2254
Owen2101
Martin2010
Crawford1601
Pulaski1602
Brown1463
Ohio1317
Union1120
Benton1090
Switzerland960
Warren891
Unassigned0236

COVID-19 Important links and resources

As the spread of COVID-19, or as it's more commonly known as the coronavirus continues, this page will serve as your one-stop for the resources you need to stay informed and to keep you and your family safe. CLICK HERE

Closings related to the prevention of the COVID-19 can be found on our Closings page.

Community Events