ROSTKER, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE v. GOLDBERG ET AL.
Decided June 25, 1981.
REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq., violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in authorizing the President to require the registration of males and not females.
Congress is given the power under the Constitution "To raise and support Armies," "To provide and maintain a Navy," and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Pursuant to this grant of authority Congress has enacted the Military Selective Service Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the President, by proclamation, to require the registration of "every male citizen" and male resident aliens between the ages of 18 and 26. The purpose of this registration is to facilitate any eventual conscription...The MSSA registration provision serves no other purpose beyond providing a pool for subsequent induction.
Registration for the draft under 3 was discontinued in 1975. In early 1980. President Carter determined that it was necessary to reactivate the draft registration process. The immediate impetus for this decision was the Soviet armed invasion of Afghanistan. According to the administration's witnesses before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the resulting crisis in Southwestern Asia convinced the President that the "time has come" "to use his present authority to require registration . . . as a necessary step to preserving or enhancing our national security interests...."
On July 2, 1980, the President, by Proclamation, ordered the
registration of specified groups of young men pursuant to the authority
conferred by 3 of the Act. Registration was to commence on July 21,
On Friday, July 18, 1980, three days before registration was to commence, the District Court issued an opinion finding that the Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and permanently enjoined the Government from requiring registration under the Act. The court initially determined that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was ripe, determinations which are not challenged here by the Government. Turning to the merits, the court rejected plaintiffs' suggestions that the equal protection claim should be tested under "strict scrutiny," and also rejected defendants' argument that the deference due Congress in the area of military affairs required application of the traditional "minimum scrutiny" test. Applying the "important government interest" test articulated in Craig v. Boren (1976), the court struck down the MSSA. The court stressed that it was not deciding whether or to what extent women should serve in combat, but only the issue of registration, and felt that this "should dispel any concern that we are injecting ourselves in an inappropriate manner into military affairs." The court then proceeded to examine the testimony and hearing evidence presented to Congress by representatives of the military and the Executive Branch, and concluded on the basis of this testimony that "military opinion, backed by extensive study, is that the availability of women registrants would materially increase flexibility, not hamper it." It rejected Congress' contrary determination in part because of what it viewed as Congress' "inconsistent positions" in declining to register women yet spending funds to recruit them and expand their opportunities in the military.
The Director of Selective Service immediately filed a notice of appeal and the next day, Saturday, July 19, 1980, JUSTICE BRENNAN, acting in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, stayed the District Court's order enjoining commencement of registration. Registration began the next Monday. On December 1, 1980, we noted probable jurisdiction.
Whenever called upon to judge the constitutionality of an Act
Congress - "the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is
called upon to perform," the Court accords "great weight to the
decisions of Congress." The Congress is a coequal branch of
Members take the same oath we do to uphold the Constitution of the
United States. The customary deference accorded the judgments of
is certainly appropriate when, as here, Congress specifically
considered the question of the Act's constitutionality.
This is not, however, merely a case involving the customary deference accorded congressional decisions. The case arises in the context of Congress' authority over national defense and military affairs, and perhaps in no other area has the Court accorded Congress greater deference. In rejecting the registration of women, Congress explicitly relied upon its constitutional powers under Art. I, 8, cls. 12-14.... T
Not only is the scope of Congress' constitutional power in this area broad, but the lack of competence on the part of the courts is marked:
None of this is to say that Congress is free to disregard the Constitution when it acts in the area of military affairs. In that area, as any other, Congress remains subject to the limitations of the Due Process Clause, but the tests and limitations to be applied may differ because of the military context. We of course do not abdicate our ultimate responsibility to decide the constitutional question, but simply recognize that the Constitution itself requires such deference to congressional choice....
The District Court purported to recognize the appropriateness of deference to Congress when that body was exercising its constitutionally delegated authority over military affairs, but it stressed that "[w]e are not here concerned with military operations or day-to-day conduct of the military into which we have no desire to intrude." Appellees also stress that this case involves civilians, not the military, and that "the impact of registration on the military is only indirect and attenuated." We find these efforts to divorce registration from the military and national defense context, with all the deference called for in that context, singularly unpersuasive. Registration is not an end in itself in the civilian world but rather the first step in the induction process into the military one, and Congress specifically linked its consideration of registration to induction. Congressional judgments concerning registration and the draft are based on judgments concerning military operations and needs, and the deference unquestionably due the latter judgments is necessarily required in assessing the former as well....
The Solicitor General argues, largely on the basis of the foregoing cases emphasizing the deference due Congress in the area of military affairs and national security, that this Court should scrutinize the MSSA only to determine if the distinction drawn between men and women bears a rational relation to some legitimate Government purpose, and should not examine the Act under the heightened scrutiny with which we have approached gender-based discrimination. We do not think that the substantive guarantee of due process or certainty in the law will be advanced by any further "refinement" in the applicable tests as suggested by the Government. Announced degrees of "deference" to legislative judgments, just as levels of "scrutiny" which this Court announces that it applies to particular classifications made by a legislative body, may all too readily become facile abstractions used to justify a result. In this case the courts are called upon to decide whether Congress, acting under an explicit constitutional grant of authority, has by that action transgressed an explicit guarantee of individual rights which limits the authority so conferred. Simply labeling the legislative decision "military" on the one hand or "gender-based" on the other does not automatically guide a court to the correct constitutional result.
No one could deny that under the test of Craig v. Boren the Government's interest in raising and supporting armies is an "important governmental interest." Congress and its Committees carefully considered and debated two alternative means of furthering that interest: the first was to register only males for potential conscription, and the other was to register both sexes. Congress chose the former alternative. When that decision is challenged on equal protection grounds, the question a court must decide is not which alternative it would have chosen, had it been the primary decisionmaker, but whether that chosen by Congress denies equal protection of the laws.
Nor can it be denied that the imposing number of cases from
this Court previously cited suggest that judicial deference to such
congressional exercise of authority is at its apogee when legislative
action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies
and make rules and regulations for their governance is challenged....
The MSSA established a plan for maintaining "adequate armed strength . . . to insure the security of [the] Nation." Registration is the first step "in a united and continuous process designed to raise an army speedily and efficiently." Although the three-judge District Court often tried to sever its consideration of registration from the particulars of induction, Congress rather clearly linked the need for renewed registration with its views on the character of a subsequent draft. The Senate Report specifically found that "[a]n ability to mobilize rapidly is essential to the preservation of our national security. . . . A functioning registration system is a vital part of any mobilization plan." As Senator Warner put it, "I equate registration with the draft." Such an approach is certainly logical, since under the MSSA induction is interlocked with registration: only those registered may be drafted, and registration serves no purpose beyond providing a pool for the draft. any assessment of the congressional purpose and its chosen means must therefore consider the registration scheme as a prelude to a draft in a time of national emergency. Any other approach would not be testing the Act in light of the purposes Congress sought to achieve.
Congress determined that any future draft, which would be facilitated by the registration scheme, would be characterized by a need for combat troops. The Senate Report explained, in a specific finding later adopted by both Houses, that "[i]f mobilization were to be ordered in a wartime scenario, the primary manpower need would be for combat replacements." The purpose of registration, therefore, was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.
Women as a group, however, unlike men as a group, are not eligible for combat. The restrictions on the participation of women in combat in the Navy and Air Force are statutory. Under 10 U.S.C. 6015, "women may not be assigned to duty on vessels or in aircraft that are engaged in combat missions," and under 10 U.S.C. 8549 female members of the Air Force "may not be assigned to duty in aircraft engaged in combat missions." The Army and Marine Corps preclude the use of women in combat as a matter of established policy. Congress specifically recognized and endorsed the exclusion of women from combat in exempting women from registration. In the words of the Senate Report:
The 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. Again turning to the Senate Report:
Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men, therefore, does not violate the Due Process Clause. The exemption of women from registration is not only sufficiently but also closely related to Congress' purpose in authorizing registration. The fact that Congress and the Executive have decided that women should not serve in combat fully justifies Congress in not authorizing their registration, since the purpose of registration is to develop a pool of potential combat troops. The Constitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality....
Although the military experts who testified in favor of registering women uniformly opposed the actual drafting of women, there was testimony that in the event of a draft of 650,000 the military could absorb some 80,000 female inductees. The 80,000 would be used to fill noncombat positions, freeing men to go to the front. In relying on this testimony in striking down the MSSA, the District Court palpably exceeded its authority when it ignored Congress' considered response to this line of reasoning.
In the first place, assuming that a small number of women
be drafted for noncombat roles, Congress simply did not consider it
worth the added burdens of including women in draft and registration
Congress also concluded that whatever the need for women for
noncombat roles during mobilization, whether 80,000 or less, it could
be met by volunteers....
Most significantly, Congress determined that staffing noncombat positions with women during a mobilization would be positively detrimental to the important goal of military flexibility.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it authorized the registration of men, and not women, under the Military Selective Service Act. The decision of the District Court holding otherwise is accordingly
....I perceive little, if any, indication that Congress itself concluded that every position in the military, no matter how far removed from combat, must be filled with combat-ready men. Common sense and experience in recent wars, where women volunteers were employed in substantial numbers, belie this view of reality. It should not be ascribed to Congress, particularly in the face of the testimony of military authorities, hereafter referred to, that there would be a substantial number of positions in the services that could be filled by women both in peacetime and during mobilization, even though they are ineligible for combat.....JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of "ancient canards about the proper role of women." It upholds a statute that requires males but not females to register for the draft, and which thereby categorically excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation. Because I believe the Court's decision is inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws, I dissent....
relevant inquiry under the Craig v. Boren test is not whether a
gender-neutral classification would substantially advance important
governmental interests. Rather, the question is whether the
gender-based classification is itself substantially related to the
achievement of the asserted governmental interest. Thus, the
Government's task in this case is to demonstrate that excluding women
from registration substantially furthers the goal of preparing for a
draft of combat troops. Or to put it another way, the Government must
show that registering women would substantially impede its efforts to
prepare for such a draft. Under our precedents, the Government cannot
meet this burden without showing that a gender-neutral statute would be
a less effective means of attaining this end....