Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

NCFM VP Marc Angelucci argues NCFM case against male only Selective Service System in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

December 9, 2015


Selective Service

Click on our logo to read our press release.

On December 8, 2015 NCFM’s appeal in their lawsuit against the Selective Service challenging the constitutionality of the male-only draft requirement came up for oral argument before a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California.

NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci barely got three      sentences in when the judges stopped him and essentially said there is no need to argue whether the dismissal was erroneous in 2013, because a few days ago the circumstances changed when the Department of Defense announced that women would be allowed in all combat roles. Angelucci, surprised and even somewhat taken back by the court’s position, reserved his remaining time and sat down. The Court understood.

The U.S. Attorney General then argued adamantly that even with the new announcement from the Department of Defense, the case is still not “ripe” (that it, the case is still premature) because there are still developments pending regarding women in combat. She also argued that NCFM and Lesmeister lack standing to sue and do not allege an actual injury.

The judges disagreed, pointing out that alleging a violation of Equal Protection is a claim of injury in and of itself. One judge even compared the situation to forcing only blacks to register for the draft.

We believe the judges will remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings, including that it will be heard on the merits rather than the issue of “ripeness.” NCFM hopes the decision is soon issued.

The Court noted that Congress might soon be dealing with the issue of women registering for Selective Service. It is conceivable the Courts may take its time in issuing a decision to give Congress more time to act.

It is curious that the Secretary of Defense removing the last legal barrier to women registering for Selective Service did not compel the U.S. Attorney General to discontinue opposing our case, especially considering the current administration’s concern for gender equality.

Regardless, yesterday was a good day. It appears our appeal prevailed! Many thanks to our Vice-President Marc Angelucci.

A Washington Post reporter was there and ran a story quoting several NCFM members.

The oral argument can be viewed and heard at

slective service

NCFM members after the court hearing.

national coalition for menThe Selective Service System should be gender inclusive.

There is no legal reason women should not be required to register for Selective Service.

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to NCFM VP Marc Angelucci argues NCFM case against male only Selective Service System in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

  1. Ken on January 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM

    From the lack of comments I am guessing that we are flogging a dead horse and there does not seem to be any movement, even more than 30 days after the announcement, nothing is being reported about the possible changes to the Selective Service Act

    From the research I have done, this recent change has been before Congress since March 2015 with the last mention in August 2015, and still nothing done….. I understand that the Selective Service Act has been in place since 1983…and females have been exempted for all of that time….I thought Americans took justice and equality very seriously. This one seems to fly under the radar…

    I don’t know a lot about politics in the USA and some of my comments may seem a little out of left field. But as I understand it there will be a new President elected in March, I wonder if the Congress is waiting to get the election over before making any decision. There is a possibility that the new President will be a woman. I wonder what her position will be on male only selective service, I am guessing that she will be non-committal about the subject, at least before the vote, if she was to come out and say male only registration should remain she will be considered hypocritical and if she is in support of making females register then she is likely to lose half of her support base….

  2. Ken on December 27, 2015 at 12:55 AM

    Its almost thirty days since Congress were given the DoD report, do they now have a further 30 days to consider it, or will the time be up on the 3rd of January? I will watch for the result.

    I suppose the results of the hearing on the December 8th will not be released until after that date. Just an aside Regarding the hearing, when men are asking that the law pertaining to selective service to be changed to include women it is seems to be perceived as pathetic and it leaves us open to derogatory comments from women like “are you afraid” “are you a coward” and of course the “why don’t you man up”. Ask any man who has brought up the subject in mixed company. Yet if women were asking that the law be changed nothing would be said. Of course that is not going to happen.

    My guess is that nothing will change, and another generation of females will miss out on their “equal rights” in the land of the “Free” (half the population anyway). I read the report from Kristy N. Kamarck, and it was full of excuses and reasons why females should not be included with words like “Interest in serving in combat roles (propensity) and comments about the likelihood of objections from women’s groups, who won’t be subject to the perceptions I described above.

    I wonder if it is an omen that the statue of LIBERTY is a woman….

    If the decision goes the other way and females are required to register I feel an amendment should be put in place that allows for an additional 12 months obligation period (9 months gestation and 3 months initial care) should be added for each pregnancy resulting in a live birth, so there is not a “out” for getting pregnant.

    Just as an off topic comment. I saw a news report about a woman who made a false rape accusation because she failed an exam and wanted an excuse to repeat. She accused a man who was, obviously unknown to her, in prison at the time of the alleged assault. What would have happened if he not had such a solid defence and was found guilty, what is the term for rape in the US, 10 to 20 years?….. She got two.

  3. Joe on December 22, 2015 at 2:15 PM

    Any more news on this?

  4. C.V. Shaw on December 20, 2015 at 9:01 PM

    Congratulations on this law suite. You have my full support for the same. “We Hunt the Mammoth” (wording may be incorrect) is a male feminist online site. It started a discussion recently on the USA men only military draft. Their position was that of arrogant and deprecating ridicule towards MRA’s who complain of the injustice and sexism inherent in Men Only Military Draft. Not knowing that it was a feminist site, I posted a comment opposing the Men Only Draft as being sexist and discriminatory. A torrent of deprecating, false, and oppressive comments followed. What became apparent was that these same male feminists were, themselves, terrified of any kind of military duty. However, they strongly advocated for non-feminist men to fulfill their duty of defending women through military service. I posted another comment recalling that only 1% of those qualified for USA military service were interested in the same. A torrent of insulting,arrogant and deprecating responses followed. However, again, these male feminists made it clear that they were absolutely terrified of any kind of military service.
    The aforementioned argues for and supports ending the male only military draft as it demonstrates that male feminists and many feminists take the position that men are second class citizens who have a military duty to defend them through military service which duty is inherent in their gender only without regard to traditional concepts of justice and Constitutional norms. I served with the U.S. Army; 4th I.D.; 2/8th Inf.; Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970.

  5. john Smith on December 19, 2015 at 11:15 PM

    The Court is not done with it yet, obviously. I have experience with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals when a female is the subject of the suit. My prediction is a one and a half page ruling against the appeal containing the phrase “finding no reversible error”. The Court will not even comment on the merits or even state their legal reasoning thereby forcing appellant to petition SCOTUS where the odds of being heard are zero. They will wash their hands of this case just like Pilate. I hope I’m wrong, but I bet I’m not.

  6. Caleb on December 17, 2015 at 9:57 PM

    I’m honestly surprised to hear of the courts reaction.

  7. Ken on December 11, 2015 at 11:07 PM

    Congratulation on the case last Tuesday, I am not experienced in legal matters, but it did seem to go well. I have watched the video of the proceeding a number of times, and I, like Marc have to bite my tongue each time I hear that no injury was caused…..
    My thoughts on the matter are:-
    I am surprised at the apathy shown, 3 days after the case there are still no comments. Maybe Men are happy with their lot, and I don’t expect Women would be likely to rock the boat…

    I felt that there was a conflict of interest in that one of the Judges, a Woman who turned 20 in 1966 and was free to continue her education and start her career in which she could not make up her mind fliting between three different courses before choosing a different college and settling on Law, while men her age had the choice of Vietnam or imprisonment. I guess they had another choice, that of a conscientious objector and spent the rest of their lives being reminded of that with some Woman sending them a white feather. (When there has been vision of refugees fleeing out of Syria and there were Men among to group, our local newspaper carried many letters, mainly from Women, asking why they were leaving and not staying to fight. So the white feather brigade is still alive and well.) At least, I believe the Judge could see the unfairness of it and chastised the Government Attorney on a number of points including using the example of would she feel the same way if only black people were subject to the draft, and the suggestion that no injury was caused simply by Mr. Lesmeister registering and not been sent to the front line.

    The Government Attorney was also the recipient of the privilege of not having being required to register and was able to pursue her career without the threat of being dismissed from her Government job, or not being able to get a driving licence, not allowed to vote and no threat of jail or a fine, or being called up at the whim of the Government, and stood there arguing that the law should not be changed.
    I fail to see why the Selective Service Registration service is linked to “combat”, does it assume that Men are aching to get the chance to legally kill someone, or get killed in the process?

    It has been noted that if only one position in not opened to females, and lets be trite for a moment, and even if that position is an attendant in the male bathrooms, the whole case would be lost and the male only registration would remain.

    The Selective service registration law requires ALL males aged 18 to register including, amputees, paraplegics, quadriplegics, blind or the mentally disabled to gain access to the social security system, men who are totally dependent on the assistance from that system and yet a healthy, fit 18 year old female can obtain any service without registering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.