Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Rostker Vs. Goldberg

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 1981

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 12 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Macintosh US Supreme Court · May 25, 1931
    Relied / Followed
  2. Craig Vs. Boren US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1976
  3. Reed Vs. Reed US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1971
    Distinguished
  4. Orloff Vs. Willoughby US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  5. Califano Vs. Webster US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1977
  6. Schlesinger Vs. Ballard US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1975
  7. Greer Vs. Spock US Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1976
    Relied / Followed
  8. Califano Vs. Goldfarb US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1977
  9. United States Vs. Nugent US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1953
  10. Bolling Vs. Sharpe US Supreme Court · May 17, 1954
  11. Kahn Vs. Shevin US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1974
  12. U.S. 57 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Rostker v. Goldberg
    Search
  13. U.S. 57 (1981) Rostker v. Goldberg
    Search
  14. supra, plaintiffs were still under certain affirmative obligations in connection with registration. Rowland v. Tarr
    Search
  15. record on the operation of the Selective Service System and what action would be necessary to reactivate it. Goldberg v. Tarr
    Search
  16. test articulated in Craig v. Boren
    Search
  17. Blodett v. Holden
    Search
  18. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic
    Search
  19. to uphold the Constitution of the United States. As Justice Frankfurter noted in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
    Search
  20. to raise and regulate armies and navies, Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  21. U. S. 367 , 391 U. S. 377 (1968). See Lichter v. United
    Search
  22. constitutional power in this area broad, but the lack of competence on the part of the courts is marked. In Gilligan v. Morgan
    Search
  23. Orloff v. Willoughby
    Search
  24. executive judgments in the area of military affairs is evident in several recent decisions of this Court. In Parker v. Levy
    Search
  25. In Middendorf v. Henry
    Search
  26. Deference to the judgment of other branches in the area of military affairs also played a major role in Greer v. Spock
    Search
  27. S. 837 -838 (1976), where the Court upheld a ban on political speeches by civilians on a military base, and Brown v. Glines
    Search
  28. imposing a prior restraint on the right to petition of military personnel. Page 453 U. S. 67 See also Burns v. Wilson
    Search
  29. U. S. 605 , 283 U. S. 622 (1931). In Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  30. necessary to continued service. The Court distinguished previous gender-based discriminations held unlawful in Reed v. Reed
    Search
  31. U. S. 71 (1971), and Frontiero v. Richardson
    Search
  32. Hamilton v. Kentucky
    Search
  33. requires such deference to congressional choice. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Page 453 U. S. 68 Inc. v. Democratic
    Search
  34. national defense context, with all the deference called for in that context, singularly unpersuasive. United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  35. and women bears a rational relation to some legitimate Government purpose, see United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz
    Search
  36. the Act under the heightened scrutiny with which we have approached gender-based discrimination, see Michael M. v. Superior
    Search
  37. automatically guide a court to the correct constitutional result. No one could deny that, under the test of Craig v. Boren
    Search
  38. between the deference due Congress and our own constitutional responsibility is perhaps best instanced in Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  39. Toth Page 453 U. S. 71 v. Quarles
    Search
  40. U. S. 11 , 350 U. S. 17 . See also Orloff v. Willoughby
    Search
  41. U.S. at 345 U. S. 93 -94. Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  42. U. S. 313 , 430 U. S. 320 (1977) (quoting Califano v. Goldfarb
    Search
  43. The issue was considered at great length, and Congress clearly expressed its purpose and intent. Contrast Califano v. Westcott
    Search
  44. Falbo v. United
    Search
  45. States, 320 U. S. 549 , 320 U. S. 553 (1944), see United States v. Nugent
    Search
  46. Consistent with the approach of this Court in Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  47. since the purpose of registration is to develop a pool of potential combat troops. As was the case in Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search
  48. District Court denied plaintiffs' application to convene a three-judge District Court and dismissed the suit, Rowland v. Tarr
    Search
  49. As the Court stated in Schlesinger v. Ballard
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial