Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988

Rostker v. Goldberg - Significance, President Carter Reactivates The Selective Service System, Validity Of Rostker Questioned, Women And The Selective Service Exemption

petitioner lawyer respondent court


Dr. Bernard Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System


Robert L. Goldberg

Petitioner's Claim

That the exemption of women from the registration requirements of the Selective Service System did not violate the Constitution by discriminating between men and women.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Wade H. McCree, U.S. Solicitor General

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Donald L. Weinberg

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

25 June 1981


That the Selective Service System exemption for women does not violate the Constitution.

Related Cases

  • Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
  • Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973).
  • Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976).
  • Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji - The Facts Of The Case, The Lower Courts Rule, The Supreme Court Affirms [next] [back] Rogers v. Lodge - Significance, The Lower Courts Rule, The Supreme Court Rules, Dissenting Voices

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

almost 11 years ago

I find the last line of the above article 'certain segments of society find it hard to imagine that very many women would want to do so' appalling.

These Selective Service Laws DO NOT ASK anyone if they would LIKE TO or ENJOY serving involuntarily in direct ground combat. They ORDER, under punishment by imprisonment, OF ONLY MALES to serve in direct ground combat. Females stay at home and enjoy affirmative placement in jobs ahead of males which require speed and strength similar to those of direct ground combat by 'gender-norming' physical requirements of those jobs. Why not 'gender-norm' the physical requirements for involuntary, affirmative placement in direct ground combat of females ahead of males, thus giving females equal representation in combat operations??

Vote down Vote up

over 10 years ago

Women should be put in those combat situation it violates our codes of honor and valor to put them in that position to be in danger is cowardly. If we were to have a draft again have may fathers and mothers would like to see the young daughters go off in combat and never return? The front lines is no place for women.