Editing Selective Service System (section)

==Legal issues==
The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]] which says Congress "shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union;" The Selective Service Act is the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.

The act has been challenged in light of the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] which prohibits "[[involuntary servitude]]".<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html |title = Butler v Perry (1916) |publisher = Law.umkc.edu |date = 21 February 1916 |access-date = 8 April 2011 |archive-date = 29 October 2010 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101029134803/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html |url-status = dead }}</ref> These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in ''Butler v. Perry'' (1916):
<blockquote>The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.<ref>''Butler v. Perry'' {{ussc|source=f|240|328|1916}}</ref></blockquote>

During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Arver v. United States'' (1918), also known as the [[Selective Draft Law Cases]], that the draft did not violate the Constitution.<ref>''Arver v. United States'' {{ussc|source=f|245|366|1918}}</ref>

Later, during the Vietnam War, a [[United States courts of appeals|federal appellate court]] concluded in ''[[Holmes v. United States]]'' (1968) that the draft was constitutional even during peacetime.<ref>''Holmes v. United States'', {{ussc|source=f|391|936|1968}}</ref>

Since the reinstatement of draft registration in 1980, the Supreme Court has heard and decided four cases related to the Military Selective Service Act: ''Rostker v. Goldberg'', 453 U.S. 57 (1981), upholding the constitutionality of requiring men but not women to register for the draft; ''Selective Service v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG)'', 468 U.S. 841 (1984), upholding the constitutionality of the "Solomon Amendment", which requires applicants for Federal student aid to certify that they have complied with draft registration, either by having registered or by not being required to register; ''Wayte v. United States'', 470 U.S. 598 (1985), upholding the policies and procedures which the Supreme Court thought the government had used to select the "most vocal" non-registrants for prosecution, after the government refused to comply with discovery orders by the trial court to produce documents and witnesses related to the selection of non-registrants for prosecution; and ''[[Elgin v. Department of Treasury]]'', 567 U.S. 1 (2012), regarding procedures for judicial review of denial of federal employment for non-registrants.<ref>{{cite web |title = Draft Registration, Draft Resistance, the Military Draft, and Health Care Workers and Women and the Draft |url = http://www.resisters.info/#supremecourt |website = Resisters.info |access-date = 12 February 2016 }}</ref>

The case ''[[National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System]]'' resulted in the male-only draft registration being declared unconstitutional by a district court. That decision was reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.<ref name="hasbrouck.org"/> A petition for review was then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hasbrouck |first1=Edward |title=Supreme Court asked to review Constitutionality of current male-only draft registration requirement |url=https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002587.html |website = Resisters.info |access-date=23 January 2021}}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision by the Court of Appeals.<ref name="AL2021">{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=2021-06-07 |title=Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Limiting Military Draft to Men |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/us/supreme-court-draft.html |access-date=2021-06-07 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>