Summary and Update on EME v Donald Trump

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. They 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 constitutional questions at issue and distinguished it from other cases pending at that time, 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 was scheduled for November 17, 2025. It did not happen. Latest update was held on December 8, 2025

Notice of Supplemental Authorities re: 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Holland, Liam) (Entered: 12/08/2025).

Motion to Continue Motion Hearing to 3/3/2026 by Equal Means Equal (Murphy, Wendy) (Entered: 12/10/2025).

Judge William G. Young: Electronic Order entered granting 27 Motion to Continue Motion Hearing to 3/3/2026 by Equal Means Equal. (KB) (Entered: 12/10/2025).

Electronic Notice Resetting Hearing on Motion 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

Motion Hearing reset for 3/24/2026 02:00 PM in Courtroom 18 (remote only) before Judge William G. Young.

Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. You will find access information here in the March issue.

Congressional Updates from the Alice Paul web site

The Equal Rights Amendments were introduced in the House and Senate during March—Women’s History Month. Representative Pressley’s Bill HJ Resolution 80 now has 215 co-sponsors, including Rep. Bobby Scott We still have three members –Adam Grey, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Henry Cuellar whose signatures are needed. Newly sworn in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (AZ) is expected to join the sponsors.

Senator Murkowski’s Bill SJ Resolution 38 and cosponsor, Senator Mazie Hirano, are working together to secure more members. The Senate bill is a companion bill to the House Resolution and the two bills share the same name: a joint resolution establishing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

REMEMBER: ERA IS ALREADY THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Three Key Points to share:

1. The ERA as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a formality, not something needed to make it valid. President Biden’s action confirmed what we already knew. The the amendment fully met all the constitutional requirements with Virginia’s ratification on January 27, 2020.
2. Time limits are arbitrary. The are not mentioned as part of the amending process in the Constitution.
3. The fight is now about Awareness and Education. We must ensure that people know the ERA is the law of the land, protecting people from gender-based discrimination in all aspects of life, from reproductive healthcare to workplace equality.

Keep sharing these statements and be positive!

Nancy Werner
Advocacy ERA Lead
2022-2026