| Rostker v. Goldberg | |
|---|---|
| Full case name | Bernard Rostker, Director of Selective Service, et al. v. Robert L. Goldberg, et al. |
| Argued | March 24 1981 |
| Decided | June 25 1981 |
| Holding | |
| The Act's registration provisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment. Congress acted well within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it authorized the registration of men and not women. | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
| Dissent | White , joined by Brennan |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan |
| Laws applied | |
| |
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. On July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter re-established the Military Selective Service System with a recommendation that the Act be extended to include women. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys including one Robert L. Goldberg subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.)
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed. In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles.
White, Marshall, and Brennan dissented. Marshall commented that "The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of 'ancient canards about the proper role of women'."
See also[]
External links[]
- 453 U.S. 57 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- Summary of case from OYEZ
The original article can be found at Rostker v. Goldberg and the edit history here.