Case: Hegar v. Panetta
3:12-cv-06005 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: Nov. 27, 2012
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On November 27, 2012, a group of individual servicewomen and the Service Women's Action Network (a nonprofit organization that supports servicewomen and veterans) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Secretary of the Department of Defense ("DoD"). The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from private practice and from the ACLU Women's Rights Project and its Northern California Chapter, asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging as unconstitutional DoD's official policy barring women from serving in units whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that this 1994 policy could not be justified by any important governmental objective and therefore violated their right to equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On January 24, 2013, DoD rescinded the 1994 directive and stated that "[i]ntegration of women into newly opened positions and units will occur as expeditiously as possible, considering good order and judicious use of fiscal resources, but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016." The Military Services, consisting of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, were ordered to submit plans for implementing the new policy to the Secretary by May 15, 2013. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2013, arguing that DoD had continued to exclude women from applying for or serving in hundreds of thousands of combat positions despite rescinding the 1994 policy directive. DoD responded that this challenge was not ripe because the department was still in the process of implementing the new policy.
At the parties' request, on May 5, 2014, the District Court (Judge Edward M. Chen) entered a limited stay of the case until January 1, 2016, the deadline for implementing the new policy; this was later extended.
In a case management statement dated January 5, 2017, the plaintiffs took the position that the case should remain stayed until it becomes more certain if, and how, implementation of the directive will proceed under the Trump administration. The defendant countered that the plaintiffs do not have standing to maintain the action, and that the claims alleged are moot. The court continued the stay throughout 2017 and hosted periodic case management conferences.
At the end of that year, on December 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. This complaint added further detail to the first amended complaint and restated the same request for relief: a declaration that the defendants had violated the plaintiffs' right to due process and equal protection of the laws, and injunctive relief ending gender-based exclusionary policies and practices and allowing women to apply for all combat-related positions. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue, non-justiciability, and lack of standing.
Just under five months later, on May 1, 2018, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. 320 F. Supp. 3d 1082. The court allowed the plaintiff another opportunity to file a third amended complaint. On June 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that challenged the DoD's Leaders First policy, which assigned junior servicewomen exclusively to units with female leaders, and the Marines' segregation of basic training by sex. The defendants again moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
On November 29, 2018, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court found that the Network had organizational standing to challenge both DoD policies, associational standing to challenge the Marines' training policy, and that the plaintiffs had adequately stated a claim. However, the court found that the Network had not pled facts to establish that it had associational standing to challenge the Leaders First policy. 352 F. Supp. 3d 977.
Following the previous order, the parties began engaging in discovery. On February 26, 2020, Judge Chen referred the case to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for settlement discussions. A settlement conference is scheduled for May 21, 2020. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Julie Singer (2/13/2017)
Carolyn Weltman (2/28/2016)
Craig Streit (10/26/2016)
Keagan Potts (3/19/2019)
Hope Brinn (5/16/2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4179731/parties/service-womens-action-network-v-esper/
Chen, Edward Milton (California)
Agarwal, Shilpi (California)
Crosby, Margaret C. (California)
Carmichael, Andrew Evan (District of Columbia)
Cutri-Kohart, Rebecca (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4179731/service-womens-action-network-v-esper/
Last updated July 29, 2026, 2:44 a.m.
Docket for: Service Women's Action Network v. Esper
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 27, 2012
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are individual servicewomen who have served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and the Service Women's Action Network, a nonprofit organization that supports servicewomen and veterans.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Defense
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:12-cv-06005
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Case Summary of Hegar v. Panetta, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/12591/ (last updated 5/16/2020).