Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10635171
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Valame v. Trump
No. 10635171 · Decided July 17, 2025
No. 10635171·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 17, 2025
Citation
No. 10635171
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIKRAM VALAME, No. 24-369
D.C. No. 5:23-cv-03018-NC
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DONALD J. TRUMP; CRAIG T. BROWN;
JOEL C. SPANGENBERG; STEVEN L.
KETT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Selective Service System; ISMAIL
RAMSEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 15, 2025***
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Vikram Valame appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action challenging the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act
(“MSSA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1090
(9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Valame’s action because Valame failed
to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Rostker v. Goldberg,
453 U.S. 57, 83 (1981) (rejecting the argument that the MSSA is unconstitutional
under the Fifth Amendment); Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir.
2015) (explaining that “we do not engage in anticipatory overruling of Supreme
Court precedent”); Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013)
(explaining that dismissal “under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either
(1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a
cognizable legal theory”). We reject as meritless Valame’s contention that the
Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-369
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C.
02KETT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Selective Service System; ISMAIL RAMSEY, Defendants - Appellees.
03Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 15, 2025*** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
04* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Valame v. Trump in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 17, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10635171 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.