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

NCFM wins Ninth Circuit Selective Service Appeal!

February 19, 2016

selective serviceThe National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is pleased to announce that on 2/19/16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the lower Federal District Court’s dismissal of NCFM’s and James Lesmeister’s lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the male-only Selective Service registration requirement.

The District Court had dismissed the case on the ground that it was not “ripe” (i.e., it was premature) because the military has not yet fully implemented the integration of women into all combat roles, and thus that the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) is still valid.  But the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the claim is “definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract,” in that “Lesmeister and the Coalition point to numerous specific changes in statutes, policies, and practices that have happened since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rostker v. Goldberg,” and therefore that the case is “ripe for adjudication.”

The Court of Appeal also rejected the Selective Service‘s argument that NCFM and Lesmeister lack standing to sue.  Then Court stated: “the Selective Service is wrong to argue that the Coalition and Lesmeister lack standing because their alleged equality injuries would not be redressed if the burdens they challenge were extended to women.”  The Court further pointed out that “the injuries the Coalition and Lesmeister allege could be addressed either by extending the burden of registration to women or by striking down the requirement for men.”

The Court of Appeal will now wait a few weeks to see if the Selective Service requests a re-hearing.  If not, the case will be remanded for further proceedings.

It is NCFM’s position that the draft does not have to be about combat, as the Selective Service’s own website states that they almost drafted women as nurses during World War II. NCFM is happy with the long-awaited decision and hopes the sex discrimination in the Selective Service will end soon, either by requiring women to register or by ending the Selective Service requirement for men.

The decision can be read here: 160219 NCFM-Lesmeister v SS 9th Circuit decision .

Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.

Vice President

National Coalition For Men

national coalition for men

This case will cause a dramatic change in the Selective Service System, whether we win or not. It’s already causing a national discussion at the highest levels, whether politicians admit it or not.

The Selective Service System must be open to all regardless of sex or sexual preference.

160219 NCFM-Lesmeister v SS 9th Circuit decision

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to NCFM wins Ninth Circuit Selective Service Appeal!

  1. Ken on July 14, 2017 at 1:31 AM

    Donald J. Trump. President of the USA. Congress of the USA

    No it’s not a political statement, it’s just that governments always have a department that searches the newspapers and computers that trawl the internet looking for what people are saying about them. Just have to hope the analyst that reads this is not a woman as it will be “nothing too see here, move on, nothing of any consequence, don’t want to rock the boat do we”.

    But on the subject of Donald Trump, his grandfather Friedrich emigrated from Germany in the late 1800s and did various things including owning hotels that he built in the Yukon and made a fortune off the hard drinking miners. It is said that miners mined the gold and he mined the miners. He went back to Germany met and married a woman from his village and went back to America after a couple of years his wife was homesick and in 1904 they tried to return and applied to regain his German citizenship, they would not allow him, claiming he only left the country when he was younger to get out of military service (I wonder if they asked his wife the same questions) and then deported him back to the USA, his wife was pregnant with Fred, Donald’s father, and as they say the rest is history, but what a different history it would have been if they had not discriminated against him and he had been granted German citizenship..…Considering the events of the next decade, a very different history.

    Back to the topic, there has not been much said recently on the subject of the Selective Service case brought by NCFM. I guess things are happening in the background, the cogs of legal matters turn slowly.

    I spoke of the Portuguese system of national service in a previous comment, I have been looking at other countries, Norway and more recently Sweden have required females to do compulsory national service, joining a few others around the world, although I have read that in Sweden it is not yet a done deal.
    The Swiss system is similar to the Portuguese one except men are conscripted for about a year rather than just have to attend an information day.

    The thing that bugged me was the procedure, all citizen’s, on their 18 birthday, get a letter to attend a recruitment session, men are forced under threat of penalty to attend, women are informed that they may attend but are not legally required to, and there is no consequence if they don’t. The girls that do attend are taken aside and told again that it is not compulsory for them to be there but if they want to they can CHOOSE to do national service. Very few do, I read that usually none volunteer, but some years there might be one or two. The men on the other hand are forced to continue the ‘recruitment’ process and are given a service record log book to prove that they have attended and completed the various requirements. (I am guessing for future employment conditions)

    Then we get to the bit that really irks me, any man found unfit for military service has to pay 3% extra income tax until he is 30. So that means any man who is an asthmatic, has poor eyesight or even flat feet is compelled to pay the extra tax. I wonder if the women who CHOOSE NOT to do national service (that is effectively all women), have to pay the extra income tax until their 30 birthday!

    This article is getting buried under many other articles on the web site and needs bumping up to the top again.


  2. Ken on February 7, 2017 at 2:37 AM

    There hasn’t been any comments on this topic recently. The case that was won last February seems to have stalled. The SSS have appealed the decision and the last I heard the case was transferred to Texas, being passed on like a hot potato, allegedly because the defendant lives there, sounds like passing the buck to me.

    In June last year The congress made a decision that from 2018 women who turned 18 after January 1st would be required to register, it was not stated if those who had not reached the age of 26 would also be required to register, and if they were, would they have to refund their student loans or give up government jobs, and in those states that require registration to get driving licences, would their licences be suspended until they registered?? Just a thought…..However, it is all moot because by November they had reversed the decision, political pressure no doubt, so who knows what will happen.

    I have been searching all I can on the subject and discovered a report was published in January this year, it went through all that has been discussed before, the penalties and restrictions and background of the scheme etc. I discovered that the names are kept on file until their 85 birthday…that is until at around 2047 for men included in this current scheme. … Presumably to check if they are eligible for government services in their senior years. One has to hope that there is no clerical errors that might only come to light at that time…

    Other comments in various documents discuss whether women should be “ABLE“ to rather than “REQUIRED” to register, and yet look around, women are in the bar, at the ball game, on the golf course, doing anything and everything with the protection and support of the country and yet have absolutely no obligations or responsibility and men are kept on the hook until their 85 birthday…. THIS HAS TO CHANGE….

    With the pussy marches, as they have been dubbed, held recently can you imagine how up in arms they would be if Trump was to announce that females have to register, but the sooner he does the better

    • Dayvid Franke on February 13, 2017 at 6:29 AM

      I have been paying attention to it as well and agree.

  3. Thomas Pollock on November 26, 2016 at 2:56 AM

    Excellent Work !!!

    Now when are you going to do something about Social Security? Men are charged higher life insurance premiums because they die at an earlier age than women yet they cannot collect Social Security at an earlier age for the same reason?

  4. Ken on July 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM

    Michelle Obama, speaking at the Democratic convention to nominate Hillary Clinton for President, said women can do anything……….except, it seems, not to have severe restrictions on their lives without having to register for Selective Service………

  5. Mike HE on May 14, 2016 at 9:39 PM

    Thanx for bringing light to the true intent of the “Feminist Witch’s cult”.
    I thought I was on my own in trying to open the eyes of others on this legalized bigotry.
    Final word: Legal Aid; E.E.O.C. became women’s advocacy groups years ago.
    How can the president honestly establish “Work-place Equality Act” with a program
    designed with, only, women in mind.

    • Mike HE on May 14, 2016 at 9:53 PM

      Gender/Sex is just one side of the Selective Service coin; the other side
      concerns Immigration.
      Remember that a young American male who fails
      to register with Selective Service may be: blocked from certain employment;
      denied student financial aid and could be subject to other actions…

  6. Ken on March 7, 2016 at 11:58 AM

    Wouldn’t it be great if they announced that females had to register for selective service on international womans day…….

  7. Ken on March 1, 2016 at 12:44 AM

    It is more than 10 days since the referral, has the Department of Justice requested a re-hearing? I guess we will wait for another week or so to see if it is remanded. Has this really been going on for over 30 years?

    I only became aware of the Selective Service scheme in December last year. I have never heard it reported in the news here in Australia but the announcement about allowing women into combat positions was reported, and almost as an aside of only one or two sentences the reporter (female) mentioned about the women and the Selective Service. Since then I have taken an interest in the discussion and the case that was brought to the court on December 8 last year.

    Not being an American citizen (and over 65) I guess I have the same status as all of the women over there, it does not affect me. But it did in the mid to late sixties when it applied over here, even then I could not understand why women did not have to do “National Service” but they were happy to take the freedom and protection the county offered and could finish their education, start a career or travel without the threat of interruption without going through more forms to try to get a deferment, but even then men knew that at the end of their studies they were still obligated.

    I have looked at hundreds of comments. blogs, and reports, many comments mirrors what I had thought over the years, such as news reports saying “28 people died, including 7 women when the bus crashed”, so does that mean the other 21 were men and they didn’t matter. And if in a car crash a woman gets killed and the driver is a man there seems to be an extra effort to find something to charge him with and yet when the reverse happens it is just an unfortunate accident, and even my thoughts of 40 years of female only registration just to balance the books comment has been made. (Roy Den Hollander, New Male studies 2013. P39)

    I also discovered that in Oklahoma as late as 1975 that a man could not be served any alcoholic drink until he was over 21 and a woman could be served the same drink when she turned 18. (Pepperdine law review. Vol 9. 441, P450) Illinois had a similar law but that was repealed 15 years earlier. Male discrimination has been going on for a long time.

    Anyway back to the topic, I tend to look at the Selective Service issue from the other end, not whether someone should be forced to kill or be killed, it is a list of men aged 18 to 25, if it did not exist Uncle Sam would still find you if he wanted you and there would be plenty of ‘patriotic’ women ready to send a white feather to those men who did not go, but I believe for the draft to be reintroduced it would take an extreme catastrophic event, so it is the penalties for not registering that are the issue and should be applied equally. I think that women should be made to register with the same threats and conditions that apply to men, but even if that happened, I believe it would be a token registration because if that catastrophic event were to happen women would only be forced to do anything after most of the men were dead, the legislation would be full of “may” and “if required”, (See the article about Portugal referred to below) but IF women were forced to the same conditions as men, then the unfortunate side effect, once drafted they would be given the “safe” jobs and the only rotation available to the men would be from one battlefield to another……if they survived the first one….

    The cynic in me says that nothing will change men will still have to go on the list and women will still go shopping in the mall because the government would rather deal with the occasional law suit against the male only Selective Service than the thousands that would invariably be brought by the many women’s groups if women were forced to register. I am also puzzled why there is a male/female tick box on the Selective Service registration form…. Maybe I am wrong and the Government is about to give women their equal rights (responsibilities).

    Portugal has no conscription but ALL citizens are automatically registered in the year they turn 18, during that year males are REQUIRED to attend a “National Defence Day”, penalties apply to those who don’t comply, females MAY attend with no penalties if they don’t. (See “Women in the Portuguese armed forces: from visibility to eclipse” p 696, Note No.6. By Helena Carreiras). You might say that is no big deal, just like going to a truck expo, but it’s the principle that is the big deal. I am sure that persuasive speakers would apply pressure to keep the ‘volunteers’ enlisting. (Marc, could you explain what note No.6 means? Makes no sense to me)

    Norway changed the law to require women to do National Service last year, does anyone know how it is being implemented or is it also just a token scheme.

    • Michael Mehalko on March 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM

      Within one month of the announcement National Political Leaders came forward and denounced the draft registration as a whole. Amazing that the draft has been in place since before the first World War and now suddenly there are calls to do away with it all together with the mere suggestion that females may also have to serve under mandatory conditions.

      • Harry on April 15, 2016 at 3:48 AM

        There was a draft in the “Civil” War by both the USA and the CSA. Riots erupted in the USA. Many Southerners were not in support of secession and refused or evaded the draft by the CSA. When US armies began to invade, many of the ones who were opposed to secession volunteered to resist the US invasion.
        The draft is unconstitutional. Article I does not grant Congress (the federal government) any power to conscript troops. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude (two terms for the same thing) except as a punishment for crime duly convicted. Conscription, with punishment for noncompliance, is illegal.
        The only constitutional way to draft troops is to suspend habeas corpus, closing the judicial system (courts). While that is in effect, the constitution is suspended in any particulars to any degree the federal government chooses.
        Requiring registration to expedite violation of the constitution should be unconstitutional as well.

      • Ken on May 22, 2016 at 2:13 AM

        Ain’t that the truth Michael… and when,(if) Hillary Clinton is president she will suspend the Selective Service law, she has said as much when questioned about it at meetings. The problem is that it will be put to bed in its present form, and when the national emergency does happen it will be reinstated as it stands now, with the line “all Male persons” still in the legislation, and we will be back to square one, and as a dormant law I doubt if it can be amended.
        What can a man do, he gets married because a woman says so, “will you marry me”, “yes”. Only has sex because a woman says so. It used to be that a woman had a man by her side to protect her from threats, but now a man needs a woman by his side to be able to sit in a park to have his lunch, to protect against false accusations. So it will be with the Selective Service Scheme, if women are going to be inconvenienced, then it will go…


    • Harry on April 15, 2016 at 3:53 AM

      “And if in a car crash a woman gets killed and the driver is a man there seems to be an extra effort to find something to charge him with and yet when the reverse happens it is just an unfortunate accident…”
      Here in the USA if a man and a woman are in a car, it’s usually the woman who is driving. Perhaps…the men have DUIs and their licenses are suspended. Or he’s behind on child support and his license is suspended.

  8. Fred Sottile on February 24, 2016 at 6:49 PM

    Imagine adults acting like adults and accepting Equal Responsibility.
    I was in court the day that Marc “brought it.”
    The three judge panel seemed to demonstrate an opinion at that time that Marc’s position was self evident.
    They were right.

  9. Ken on February 20, 2016 at 9:29 PM

    Congratulations, well done to Marc and the team.

  10. Ben Champ on February 20, 2016 at 10:42 AM

    Good Job !! Keep going.

  11. John R. A. on February 20, 2016 at 9:29 AM

    I agree! Keep fighting the fight!

  12. James Nunya on February 20, 2016 at 9:21 AM

    Congrats guy! Keep up the good work!

  13. Robert Franklin on February 20, 2016 at 8:21 AM

    Well done Marc and NCFM! History in the making.

  14. C.V. Compton Shaw on February 19, 2016 at 6:19 PM

    My thanks to and congratulations to the NCFM for this wonderful achievement for the Men’s Rights movement. I am a Men’s Rights activist and a Vietnam War combat veteran (U.S. Army Infantry).

  15. Sue Nami on February 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM

    Kudos NCFM for a job well done.

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.