Lessons from the Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Murphy Amicus Filing

Murphy’s rejected amicus brief in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System (No. 25‑1157) argued that her separate lawsuit, Equal Means Equal v. Trump, was the only case that supposedly represented the interests of women, and she urged the Supreme Court to consider EME alongside NCFM’s petition. She claimed the Court should treat EME as “parallel litigation” and take it up if it granted review in NCFM’s case.

But her filing was submitted months late, without the required motion for leave, and after NCFM’s case had already been distributed for conference. The Supreme Court rejected her brief outright, meaning her request was never considered and has no effect whatsoever on NCFM’s case.

The rejection of Murphy’s amicus brief offers an important reminder about the role of procedural discipline in high‑stakes constitutional litigation. The Supreme Court’s docket entry states plainly:

“Amicus brief of National Women Veterans United, et al. not accepted for filing.”

This is not a minor clerical note. It is a formal rejection by the Clerk of the Supreme Court — the highest procedural gatekeeper in the federal judiciary. When the Court refuses to accept a filing, the document is treated as though it never existed. It is not docketed, not circulated, and not considered by any Justice.

The rejection underscores a fundamental truth: substance matters, but procedure governs.

The Supreme Court’s Rules Are Not Suggestions

The Supreme Court operates under a strict set of procedural rules designed to ensure fairness, order, and predictability. These rules apply equally to all litigants — from the Solicitor General to private citizens to advocacy groups.

Murphy’s filing violated several of these rules simultaneously:

1. It was filed months after the deadline.

Amicus briefs without party consent must be filed within 7 days of the petition.
Murphy filed nearly three months late.

2. It lacked the required motion for leave.

Late filings must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file.
No such motion appears on the docket.

3. It was submitted after the case had already been distributed.

Once a case is distributed for conference, unsolicited filings are almost always rejected unless accompanied by a motion showing “extraordinary circumstances.”
Again, no motion was filed.

These are not technicalities. They are foundational requirements that ensure the Court’s docket remains orderly and that all parties are treated equally.

A Pattern of Procedural Overreach

The rejection also aligns with a broader pattern seen in Murphy’s litigation history. Federal courts have repeatedly criticized her filings for:

• Missing deadlines
• Filing without standing
• Submitting documents courts do not permit
• Misrepresenting procedural posture
• Failing to comply with formatting and service rules

This pattern is not unique to this case. It has been noted in multiple jurisdictions over many years. The Supreme Court’s rejection is consistent with that history.

Protecting the Integrity of the Case

For NCFM, the rejection of the Murphy filing is not a setback — it is a clarification. It ensures that the Court will evaluate the petition based solely on:

• The petition for certiorari
• The appendix
• The respondent’s waiver
• The Court’s internal review

The case proceeds cleanly, without the distraction of a procedurally defective amicus brief that could have muddied the record or introduced arguments not properly before the Court.

In constitutional litigation, clarity matters. Precision matters. And procedural compliance matters.

A Reminder for All Advocates

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the Murphy filing is a reminder to all advocates — regardless of ideology — that:

• The Court’s rules are binding
• Deadlines are real
• Motions are mandatory
• Distribution dates matter
• Procedural shortcuts are not tolerated

The Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to rescue litigants from their own procedural missteps.

Moving Forward

With the rejected filing now formally noted on the docket, the path ahead is straightforward. The Supreme Court will consider the NCFM petition on its merits, free from procedural noise and free from filings that do not comply with the Court’s rules.

The integrity of the case remains intact.
The issues remain clear.
And the Court will evaluate the petition based on the law — not on defective filings.

The Constitutional Question Before the Supreme Court: Can the Government Still Require Only Men to Register for the Draft?

The Supreme Court is once again being asked to confront a fundamental constitutional question that has lingered unresolved for decades: Is it constitutional for the United States to require only men— and not women— to register for the military draft?

In National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System (No. 25‑1157), NCFM argues that the male‑only registration requirement violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, especially in light of the modern military’s full integration of women into combat roles.

This is not a new issue. But the legal landscape has changed dramatically since the Court last addressed it.

The Legacy of Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)

In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the male‑only draft in Rostker v. Goldberg.
The Court’s reasoning rested on a single premise:

Women were categorically excluded from combat.

Because the purpose of the draft was to raise combat troops, the Court concluded that Congress could constitutionally limit registration to men.

That premise is now gone.

A Changed Military: Women in Combat

Since 2015, the Department of Defense has opened all combat roles to women:

• Infantry
• Armor
• Artillery
• Special operations (subject to qualification)
• Front‑line combat billets

Women now serve—and excel—in positions that were legally closed to them when Rostker was decided.

This change is not symbolic. It is structural.
It eliminates the factual foundation on which Rostker rested.

The Constitutional Argument Today

NCFM’s petition presents a straightforward constitutional claim:

1. The Fifth Amendment prohibits sex‑based discrimination unless the government meets “heightened scrutiny.”

This requires the government to show:

• An important governmental interest, and
• A substantial relationship between the sex‑based classification and that interest.

2. The government can no longer justify excluding women from registration.

Because women can now serve in all combat roles, the government cannot argue that:

• Women are unavailable for combat
• Women are categorically unfit for combat
• The draft must be male‑only to raise combat troops

Those arguments were the backbone of Rostker.
They are no longer factually or legally viable.

3. A sex‑based draft is now arbitrary.

If both men and women can be drafted into combat, then requiring only men to register is a sex‑based classification without a constitutional justification.

Congress Has Acknowledged the Problem

Multiple bipartisan commissions and congressional reports have concluded:

• The male‑only draft is outdated
• It is inconsistent with modern military structure
• It is likely unconstitutional
• Congress should expand registration to women or abolish the system entirely

Yet Congress has not acted.

When Congress fails to remedy a constitutional violation, the Court is the final arbiter.

Why the Question Matters Now

The Selective Service System remains active.
Registration is still mandatory for men ages 18–25.
Failure to register carries:

• Federal criminal penalties (still on the books)
• Loss of federal student aid
• Loss of federal employment eligibility
• Loss of certain state benefits

Millions of young men remain subject to a system that treats them differently solely because of their sex.

The constitutional question is not theoretical.
It affects real people every day.

The Court’s Opportunity

The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to answer a question that has been unresolved for more than 40 years:

Can the government maintain a sex‑based draft in a military where women serve in every combat role?

The answer will shape:

• The future of the Selective Service
• The meaning of equal protection
• The limits of congressional power
• The rights and obligations of millions of Americans

Whatever the Court decides, the constitutional stakes are profound.

You can read Murphy’s amicus here:

NCFM update: Supreme Court rejects amicus brief in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System

Tags: Amicus Brief, ational Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, national coalition for men, selective service system, supreme court, Wendy Murphy