Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys.

Decision Date04 March 2019
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 15-5193 (ES) (JAD)
Citation364 F.Supp.3d 394
Parties Elizabeth KYLE-LABELL, on Behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Michael John Daher, West Harrison, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andrew Evan Carmichael, Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. Department of Justsice, Wahington, DC, for Defendants.

Salas, District Judge

Plaintiff Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell ("Plaintiff") is a 21-year-old female who wants to register for the military draft. She believes it is her right and duty as a United States citizen to do so, but because she is a woman, she is prohibited from registering. She brings this putative class action to challenge the constitutionality of the draft's male-only requirement. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Defendants Selective Service System ("SSS") and Donald M. Benton's1 (together, "Defendants") moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 54 ("SAC") ) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (D.E. No. 80). The Court has considered the parties' submissions2 and oral arguments. For the following reasons Defendants' motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

I. Background
A. Factual Background

The Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq. ("MSSA") provides in relevant part that

it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.

50 U.S.C. § 3802. "The MSSA established a plan for maintaining ‘adequate armed strength ... to insure the security of [the] Nation.’ " Rostker v. Goldberg , 453 U.S. 57, 75, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981) (quoting 50 U.S.C. App. § 451(b) ). "Registration is the first step ‘in a united and continuous process designed to raise an army speedily and efficiently....’ " Id. (quoting Falbo v. United States , 320 U.S. 549, 553, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305 (1944) ). "Congress provided for the reactivation of registration in order to ‘provid[e] the means for the early delivery of inductees in an emergency.’ " Id. (quoting S. Rep. No. 96–826, at 156 (1980) ).

In Rostker , the Supreme Court concluded that "Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it authorized the registration of men, and not women, under the [MSSA]." Id. at 83, 101 S.Ct. 2646. Particularly, the Court found that "[m]en and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft." Id. at 78–79, 101 S.Ct. 2646 ("The Constitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.").

Plaintiff asserts that women are no longer restricted from serving in combat roles, and as a result, the MSSA is now unconstitutional. (See generally SAC). Plaintiff has attempted to register for the draft at least twice. (See id. ¶ 5). Each time, Plaintiff visited the SSS website and indicated on an online form that she was female. (See id. ¶¶ 9–11). When Plaintiff "clicked ‘Female’ on the top line of the online registration form, she was prevented from registering ...." (Id. ¶ 10). Plaintiff states that she will "continue to try to register" for the draft because she believes it is her "right and duty" as a U.S. citizen. (Id. ¶ 12).

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a putative class consisting of over 15 million members. (Id. ¶¶ 26–28). Plaintiff alleges that the MSSA creates an unlawful sex-based categorization that violates her and the putative class members' equal-protection and substantive-due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment, because the MSSA (i) requires males and not females to register, and (ii) forbids females from registering. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 2, 29, 59 & 67). She asserts that "[t]his archaic exclusionary policy sends a message to all U.S. citizens and institutions that women are not capable of shouldering the responsibilities of citizenship to the same extent as men." (Id. ¶ 68).

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the MSSA's draft registration is unconstitutional. (Id. ¶ 13). Plaintiff also seeks (i) to enjoin Defendants from registering only males; or (ii) to require that females register with the SSS; or (iii) to require that registration be voluntary for both sexes. (See id. ¶ 14).

B. Procedural Background

On July 3, 2015, Allison Marie Kyle initiated this action on behalf of her then minor daughter, Plaintiff. (See D.E. No. 1).

On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint.3 (D.E. No. 26). Defendants then moved to dismiss for lack of standing and lack of ripeness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.E. No. 33).

On June 29, 2016, the Court terminated Defendants' motion and ordered supplemental submissions regarding relevant Congressional activity. (D.E. No. 48). On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which added Plaintiff as the named Plaintiff, while removing Plaintiff's mother. (See SAC). On December 21, 2016, the parties reported recent Congressional activities involving the MSSA, including the creation of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (the "Commission"). (D.E. No. 57).

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Continue the Proceedings, seeking to resume the litigation (D.E. No. 58). On July 27, 2017, the Court granted the motion and permitted Defendants to renew their motion to dismiss on the issue of standing only. (D.E. No. 61). The parties then briefed the standing issue (D.E. Nos. 69–71), and on March 29, 2018, the Court denied Defendants' motion without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff had standing. (See D.E. No. 73).

Plaintiff then sought leave to file a request for certification of the putative class and a motion for summary judgment. (D.E. Nos. 74–76). On April 18, 2018, the Court denied this request and permitted Defendants to renew their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of ripeness and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (D.E. No. 77). Subsequently, the parties briefed the instant motion, (see D.E. Nos. 80–82), and the Court held oral argument on December 4, 2018, (D.E. No. 87).

II. Legal Standard
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness is properly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because ripeness is a jurisdictional matter. NE Hub Partners, L.P. v. CNG Transmission Corp. , 239 F.3d 333, 341 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Suitum v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency , 520 U.S. 725, 734, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997) ). A party bringing a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) may assert either a "facial or factual challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction." See Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States , 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).

In a facial attack, the moving party "challenges subject matter jurisdiction without disputing the facts alleged in the complaint." Davis v. Wells Fargo , 824 F.3d 333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016). A facial attack "requires the court to consider the allegations of the complaint as true." See id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Thus, a facial attack calls for a district court to apply the same standard of review it would use in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), i.e. , construing the alleged facts in favor of the nonmoving party." Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele , 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014) ; In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig. , 846 F.3d 625, 633 (3d Cir. 2017).

In a factual attack, the moving party "attacks the factual allegations underlying the complaint's assertion of jurisdiction,either through the filing of an answer or ‘otherwise presenting competing facts.’ " Davis , 824 F.3d at 346 (quoting Constitution Party of Pa. , 757 F.3d at 358 ) (alteration omitted). "In contrast to a facial challenge, a factual challenge allows a court to weigh and consider evidence outside the pleadings." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id.

"In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Mayer v. Belichick , 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010). But a limited exception exists for "document[s] integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig. , 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). "The purpose of this rule is to avoid the situation where a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim that is based on a particular document can avoid dismissal of that claim by failing to attach the relied upon document."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Przywieczersk v. Blinken
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 9 Junio 2021
    ...dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is the vehicle for ripeness arguments. Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys., 364 F. Supp. 3d 394, 401 (D.N.J. 2019). A Rule 12(b)(1) attack can be facial where the defendant "attacks the complaint on its face without contesting its al......
  • Przywieczerski v. Blinken
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 10 Junio 2021
    ...over the dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is the vehicle for ripeness arguments. Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys., 364 F. Supp. 3d 394, 401 (D.N.J. 2019). A Rule 12(b)(1) attack can be facial where the defendant "attacks the complaint on its face without contesti......
  • Al Ummah Cmty. Ctr. v. Teaneck
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 15 Noviembre 2022
    ...... Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys. , 364 F.Supp.3d. 394, 403 (D.N.J. 2019) ......
  • Gage v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 27 Enero 2022
    ...... begins its analysis there. Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys., 364 F.Supp.3d 394, 401 (D.N.J. 2019) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Equal Protection
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIII-2, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...of the “realistic physiological size and strength differences of men and women.”). But see Kyle-Labell v. Selective Serv. Sys., 364 F. Supp. 3d 394, 417 (D.N.J. 2019) (f‌inding that women and men are more similarly situated and “the administrative concerns described by the Rostker Court are......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT