Rostker v. Goldberg
Rostker v. Goldberg is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed gender discrimination in the context of military draft registration. The case arose in the aftermath of the Vietnam War when draft registration was reinstated in 1980, yet only men were required to register. Despite the increasing number of women serving in the armed forces, Congress chose not to mandate female registration. A district court ruled this exclusion violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, prompting an appeal by Bernard Rostker, the director of the Selective Service System.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the male-only registration policy, with Justice William Rehnquist arguing that men and women were not similarly situated regarding the draft due to the combat eligibility criteria. The Court concluded that the policy was justified as it aimed to create a pool of potential combat troops. Dissenting opinions, notably from Justice Thurgood Marshall, challenged the justification, suggesting the government should demonstrate that including women in the draft would significantly hinder military preparedness. The case highlights ongoing discussions about gender equality, military service, and the roles of women in combat, reflecting broader societal views on gender roles during that period.
Rostker v. Goldberg
Date: June 25, 1981
Citation: 453 U.S. 57
Issue: Sex discrimination
Significance: The Supreme Court found that the male-only draft registration law was constitutional.
Although draft registration was discontinued after the Vietnam War, it was reinstated in 1980. With 150,000 women serving in the armed forces, Congress considered but rejected a proposal to require women as well as men to register. A district court found that the single-sex registration violated the requirement for equal protection in the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment. Bernard Rostker, director of the Selective Service System, appealed to the Supreme Court.
By a 6-3 vote, the Court upheld the law. Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the Court, argued that men and women were not “similarly situated” in regard to the draft, because Congress had decided that women as a group were not eligible for combat. He further wrote that the standard of heightened scrutiny was satisfied in the case because the policy of male-only registration was closely related to the important goal of developing a pool of potential combat troops. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the government should be required to show that registering women would substantially impede the goal of preparing for a draft of combat troops. All the justices appeared to assume that it was constitutional to restrict combat duty to men only.