Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will SCOTUS hear a male-only draft case?

In August of 2020, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a challenge by the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), which was seeking to overturn the male-only military draft as unconstitutional on the grounds of sex-discrimination. In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court had upheld the male-only draft as Constitutional on the grounds that women were barred from serving in combat roles at the time. But in 2015 combat roles were opened to female soldiers.

NCFM sued the government, arguing that the basis for the decision in Rostker v. Goldberg had been invalidated. NCFM argued the previous case should be overturned and the male-only draft ruled unconstitutional. The case reached the Fifth Circuit, which in an opinion stated:

"Plaintiffs-Appellees point to no case in which a court of appeals has done what they ask of us, that is, to disregard a Supreme Court decision as to the constitutionality of the exact statute at issue here because some key facts implicated in the Supreme Court's decision have changed. That we will not do."

NCFM filed an appeal to the Supreme Court on January 8th, 2021 requesting their case be heard.

Will the Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari to a case challenging the Military Selective Service Act as unconstitutional on the grounds of sex-discrimination by the end of 2021?

The question will resolve positively if the Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear NCFM v. Selective Service System or any other case challenging the constitutionality of the male-only draft between the date the question opens and the resolution. Evidence of certiorari granted can be provided via SCOTUSblog, reputable media sources, or official government sources. The case must directly challenge the male-only draft on the grounds of sex or gender discrimination, it does not have to be the only argument in the case but it must be a primary consideration in the case.

Positive resolution requires at least two of the following: NYT, WSJ, AP, Vox, WaPo, BBC, NPR to describe the case as being predominately a sex/gender discrimination case.


Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.