In the 1983 case Selective Service System et al. v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a federal law that denied student loans and grants to male students who failed to register for the draft. The Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) had challenged this law, arguing it violated Fifth Amendment rights by discriminating based on gender and coercing men into registering for selective service against their will. However, the court held that Congress was within its constitutional authority when it passed this legislation as an incentive for registration compliance, not as a punishment or coercion method. Furthermore, they concluded there was no violation of equal protection principles because women were excluded from draft registration due to combat restrictions at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a violation of due process rights. He contended that by upholding a law which denied federal financial aid to male students who failed to register for selective service, the court was effectively punishing individuals without trial or conviction. This, he believed, contradicted fundamental principles of fairness and justice inherent in American legal tradition. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's assertion that this penalty served as an effective incentive for registration compliance; instead arguing it disproportionately affected low-income students who relied on such aid to access higher education opportunities. Thusly viewed as punitive rather than incentivizing measure - one levied without due process - made it unconstitutional in his view.