National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 24-7746
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN, a No. 24-7746 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; TYLER D.C. No. MCNAMARA, an individual; CONOR 2:24-cv-04016-AB-E MCKIERNAN; NICHOLAS MILILLO, an individual; NICOLAS MENDIOLA, an individual; JORDAN FALCON, an MEMORANDUM* individual,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM; JOEL C. SPANGENBERG, as acting Director of Selective Service System,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 10, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

The National Coalition for Men (“NCFM”) and five of its individual

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. members appeal the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their claim that the Military

Selective Service Act’s (“Act”) male-only registration requirement violates equal

protection under the Fifth Amendment. Because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing,

we vacate the district court’s grant of the 12(b)(6) motion and remand with

instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have not shown that the named individual members have suffered

a redressable injury. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC),

Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000). They allege that each individual is a male age

18 to 26 who “has recently registered for the military draft as is required of him as

a male” and request injunctive and declaratory relief. But because each individual

member has already completed the one-time registration, there is no ongoing injury

that can be remedied by the prospective relief that plaintiffs seek. See Renee v.

Duncan, 686 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiffs must show that a court

decision would cause a “change in legal status” that would “directly redress[] the

injury suffered”); Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 495 (2009)

(rejecting standing based on a “past injury rather than imminent future injury that

is sought to be enjoined”). And no individual has alleged facts suggesting that he

intends to move or update his registration information before 26, so any injury

based on a continuing obligation to keep one’s contact information up to date with

the Selective Service is too speculative to confer standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of

2 24-7746 Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992).

Plaintiffs have also not shown that NCFM has associational standing.

NCFM alleges that “[s]ome of NCFM’s members are males 18-26 or who will be

18-26 at some time relative to this lawsuit” and are thus subject to the Act, but

NCFM does not specifically identify any individual members who would have

standing to sue on any grounds other than the named individuals, all of whom have

already registered. See Summers, 555 U.S. at 498 (plaintiff-organizations must

“make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had

suffered or would suffer harm”); Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., San Diego

Chapter, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 713 F.3d 1187, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, neither this Court nor the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction

to hear this case.1

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss without

prejudice for lack of standing.2

1 For the first time on appeal, NCFM suggests it has organizational standing. See FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 393–94 (2024). Because it did not plead facts sufficient to establish organizational standing in its complaint, it does not change our conclusion. See id. at 395. 2 Each side shall bear its own costs on appeal.

3 24-7746