Sex discrimination in the United States’ military service has recently been under fire because while it has required American men to register for the selective service upon their 18th birthday, women were not mandated to sign up.

Friday, Feb. 22, U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller in Texas ruled that the Selective Service System (SSS) cannot constitutionally direct only men to register as a requirement. His decision, many have noticed, closely tracks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s efforts to develop gender equality in the law.

In the case of the National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, Miller made the final judgement that “the male-only registration requirement of the Military Selective Service Act … violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

This is not the first case that brings the men-only draft requirement into consideration. In 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg upheld the discriminatory policy; however, in 1981, female troops were excluded from combat, and the draft is an emergency procedure to prepare for war.

In 2015, though, the Department of Defense opened all combat roles to women. Miller said gender discrimination must be related to the government’s objectives in order for it to pass constitutional assembly.

According to Bloomberg News, President Donald Trump and his administration were accused of attempting to undermine the importance of women in combat. After Miller’s ruling, the federal government has posed two arguments against opening the draft requirement to all U.S. citizens.

The first argument: if the Army subjects women to a mandatory draft, it will seem as if women will be forced to serve in combat roles. In response, fewer women will voluntarily join military organizations. Miller rejected this argument, claiming it “smacks of archaic and overbroad generalizations.”

The second argument: few women drafted will be fit for combat roles in the military. There is no Congressional proof that they gauged whether or not women would be able to serve in combat roles. Again, Miller disagreed with this statement. In response, he said that Congress “obliquely relied on assumptions and overly broad stereotypes about women and their ability to fulfill combat roles.”

However, Miller’s ruling is not an end-all; it did not include directions on how the government should begin making the change. Additionally, the SSS has not released any statements about how they plan on adding women into the system.

Miller’s decision also has no immediate effect because any appeals would move to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans before going to the Supreme Court.

Student Poll Responses

Q1. Were you previously aware of Miller’s ruling?

A: Yes: 27% No: 73% I’m not sure: 0%

Q2. Do you agree or disagree with the arguments put forth by the federal government?

A: Agree: 36% Disagree: 55% I’m not sure: 9%

Q3. Do you agree with Miller’s ruling?

A: Yes: 82% No: 18% I’m not sure: 0%

Expert Corner

Dr. Kyle C. Kopko, Associate Professor of Political Science, Associate Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Research, and Planning and Director of the Pre-Law Program

Dr. Kyle C. Kopko, assistant dean of institutional effectiveness, research and planning, Director of the Pre-Law Program and associate professor of political science, said that this case will most likely move up to the Supreme Court at some point.

“In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the gender restrictions on the draft in Rostker v. Goldberg, and much of that decision hinged on the fact that women were not permitted to serve in combat positions,” Kopko said in an email. “That has since changed.”

If this ruling becomes a federal issue, Kopko said Congress could amend the law even before it reaches the Supreme Court. The law could also be changed so that every 18-year-old would be required to register for the SSS by court order.

“My sense is that the general public generally supports gender equality in terms of draft registration, particularly since women are not restricted from combat roles as they had been in the past,” Kopko stated.

In regards to the two arguments Congress issued about this case ruling, Kopko countered that the same line of reasoning could be applied to men.

“Obviously, there will be men who are not fit for combat but must still register,” Kopko said.

“Jay Talk:” Student Quotes from Around Campus

“The arguments Congress has against this ruling are ridiculous, not to mention extremely sexist and misogynistic. Women are just as capable to serve in combat roles as men. Some men may be “unfit” for combat too, but they are required to register nonetheless. I hope Miller’s ruling becomes federal law and will continue to carry out RBG’s legacy of fighting for gender equality.”
~ Anonymous

“[Women] should not be forced to do it and men are naturally more physically fit but the argument that it will seem like women are forced into combat roles is weird to say because it either implies that men are not forced or it’s okay that men are forced but not women.”
~ Anonymous

“I think women should be a part of the draft system because so many women already are in combat roles.”
~ Dominique McDevitt, first-year

“2019 is the year of equality.”
~ Anonymous