National Coalition for Men v. Selective Ser, 969 F.3d 546

The Military Selective Service Act requires men ages 18–26 to register for potential conscription; women are not required to register.
In 1981 the Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld male-only registration, reasoning women were barred from combat and thus not "similarly situated" for draft purposes.
Since Rostker, statutory and DoD policy changes have opened combat roles to women (finalized in 2016), and Congress considered but did not mandate women’s registration in the 2017 NDAA.
Plaintiffs (Lesmeister, Davis, and the National Coalition for Men) sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the male-only registration violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component.
The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, concluding Rostker no longer controlled given women’s access to combat roles, but denied injunctive relief.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding Rostker remains controlling Supreme Court precedent and only the Supreme Court may overrule it; the court dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether male-only Selective Service registration violates the Fifth Amendment (sex discrimination)	Male-only registration is unconstitutional now that women may serve in combat; Rostker’s factual basis has changed	Rostker controls and male-only registration is constitutional under that precedent	Court held Rostker controls; reversed district court and dismissed claim
Whether a Court of Appeals may disregard Supreme Court precedent when factual underpinnings have changed	The changed facts (women in combat) justify overruling Rostker at the circuit level	A circuit court cannot overrule or disregard Supreme Court precedent; only the Supreme Court may do so	Court held only the Supreme Court may overrule its precedent; circuits must follow controlling decisions

Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) (upholding male-only draft registration based on women’s exclusion from combat)
State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) (explaining only the Supreme Court may overrule its precedents even when factual underpinnings change)
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (lower courts must follow controlling Supreme Court precedent despite tension with later decisions)
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (confirming Rodriguez de Quijas rule on adherence to Supreme Court precedents)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (discussing limits on lower courts’ authority to overturn Supreme Court precedent)
Ballew v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2012) (Fifth Circuit’s adherence to strict stare decisis among circuits)