Filed Date: April 3, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a challenge to the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), 50 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq., which requires male citizens to register for the draft but bars women from doing so. On April 3, 2025, Equal Means Equal (EME), a nonprofit advocacy group, and a female Massachusetts resident filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They sued President Donald Trump, the Acting Director of the Selective Service System, and the Selective Service System, alleging violations of the Equal Rights Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Judge William G. Young was assigned to the case.
Represented by the Women’s and Children’s Advocacy Project, the plaintiffs alleged that the individual plaintiff’s attempt to register for the Selective Service had been rejected solely because of her gender and that two EME members had faced similar denials. They argued that the categorical exclusion of women from Selective Service registration violated the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which they claimed became the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution upon Virginia’s ratification in 2020. The plaintiffs maintained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1981 decision in Rostker v. Goldberg, which upheld the male-only draft registration, no longer controlled because it predated both the ERA’s ratification and significant changes in military policy permitting women to serve in combat roles. They further alleged a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, arguing that denying women the right to register served no compelling government interest.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The requested a judicial declaration that the exclusion of women from draft registration was unconstitutional under both the ERA and the Fifth Amendment. They also sought to enjoin the federal government from continuing to enforce the male-only registration requirement, alleging that the policy stigmatized women and deprived them of equal civic obligations and opportunities.
On June 17, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act were unripe, and that the constitutional claims failed as a matter of law. The motion to dismiss also disputed the plaintiffs’ characterization of the ERA’s ratification status. The court established a briefing schedule, ordering plaintiffs to file their opposition by July 17, 2025.
In their opposition, the plaintiffs reiterated their core arguments that the Military Selective Service Act violated the ERA and the Equal Protection Clause. They also asserted that this lawsuit, brought by women on behalf of women, was the proper vehicle to address the constitutional questions at issue and distinguished it from other pending cases such as Valame v. Biden. They further argued that the court should apply strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny, which they claimed had long enabled unequal treatment of women.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for September 15, 2025.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Juliet Alpert (4/15/2025)
Victoria Tan (8/6/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69840327/parties/equal-means-equal-v-trump/
Young, William G. (Massachusetts)
Murphy, Wendy J. (Massachusetts)
Holland, Liam C. (Massachusetts)
Rising, Andrew James (Massachusetts)
Mangini, Laura D. (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69840327/equal-means-equal-v-trump/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 9:32 p.m.
State / Territory: Massachusetts
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 3, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Equal Means Equal, a nonprofit advocacy group, and a female Massachusetts resident
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
The United States Selective Service System (Washington, D.C., District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):