Rostker v. Goldberg is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court that addressed whether the federal government could require only men to register for the military draft under the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA).
The case raised important questions about gender-based classification and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, concluding that the male-only registration requirement did not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.
Brief Fact Summary
In Rostker v. Goldberg, plaintiffs challenged the Military Selective Service Act, arguing that requiring only men between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for the draft violated the Fifth Amendment. The Act required male registration to ensure a ready supply of troops in the event of a military draft, while women were excluded from this requirement. The plaintiffs claimed that this gender-based distinction amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.
Facts of Rostker v. Goldberg
The Military Selective Service Act of 1948, later revised in 1967, authorized the President to require the registration of males for possible military service. Although conscription was prohibited in 1973, the purpose of registration remained to facilitate a draft if deemed necessary by Congress and the President.
Registration for the draft had been discontinued in 1975. However, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter reinstated registration following the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Carter also requested that Congress amend the Act to include women in the registration process. This issue received widespread national attention and was debated extensively in Congress through hearings, committee discussions, and floor debates.
Despite these discussions, Congress chose not to amend the Act to include women and did not provide funding for their registration. As a result, registration resumed on July 21, 1980, applying only to men.
Several individuals, including Robert L. Goldberg, challenged the constitutionality of the Act. Earlier related challenges had been brought in cases such as Rowland v. Tarr and Goldberg v. Tarr. In July 1980, shortly before registration resumed, a district court held that the MSSA violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating based on gender.
Bernard Rostker, the Director of the Selective Service System, appealed the decision. Justice William J. Brennan Jr., acting as Circuit Justice, stayed the district court’s ruling, allowing registration to proceed. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
Issue
May the federal government require only males to register with the Selective Service System without violating the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment?
Rostker v. Goldberg Judgment
Yes. In Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court held that requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional and did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Reasoning in Rostker v. Goldberg
Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in Rostker v. Goldberg, focused on the purpose of the Military Selective Service Act and the context in which Congress made its decision. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of the Act was to prepare for a potential military draft by ensuring a sufficient supply of combat troops. This objective was recognized as an important governmental interest.
The Court also examined the relationship between the means chosen by Congress and the stated objective. At the time, military policy excluded women from combat roles in the Army and Marine Corps and restricted their participation in combat in the Navy and Air Force. Because the draft was intended to supply combat troops, Congress concluded that registering women would not significantly contribute to this goal.
The majority reasoned that men and women were not similarly situated with respect to eligibility for combat duty. As a result, treating them differently for purposes of draft registration was justified. The Court also noted that including women in registration would impose administrative burdens while offering limited practical benefits, given their exclusion from combat roles.
Additionally, the Court recognized that Congress had thoroughly considered the issue. The decision to exclude women from registration was not made casually but followed extensive debate and deliberation. Justice Rehnquist pointed out that the continuation of the male-only registration policy reflected a deliberate legislative judgment rather than an assumption based on historical discrimination.
The Court further acknowledged that many non-combat positions are filled by individuals who are rotated from combat roles. This reinforced the idea that the draft was primarily focused on maintaining combat readiness. Therefore, registering individuals who were not eligible for combat would not effectively serve the Act’s purpose.
Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that the gender-based classification in the Act was substantially related to the important governmental interest of raising and supporting armed forces. Accordingly, the classification was deemed constitutional.
Dissent
In Rostker v. Goldberg, Justice Byron White, joined by Justices Marshall and Brennan, dissented from the majority’s decision. Justice White argued that the exclusion of women from registration was not justified because there were military roles that did not require combat eligibility. He suggested that individuals who were not eligible for combat could still contribute to the military in other capacities.
Justice Marshall’s dissent focused on the principle of equal civic obligation. He emphasized that citizenship carries both rights and responsibilities, and he questioned the fairness of assigning this responsibility only to men.
The dissenting justices expressed concern that the majority’s reasoning did not fully address the broader implications of gender-based distinctions in civic duties.
Conclusion
Rostker v. Goldberg remains an important case in constitutional law, particularly in the area of equal protection and gender-based classifications. The Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act’s requirement that only men register for the draft, finding that the classification served an important governmental interest and was substantially related to that interest.