Biden Reignites Debate Over the Equal Rights Amendment’s Status

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), long a symbol of the fight for gender equality, has reemerged as a point of contention in U.S. politics. President Joe Biden reaffirmed on the final business day of his presidency his belief that the amendment, ratified by Virginia as the 38th state in 2020, has met the constitutional requirements to be recognized as the 28th Amendment. However, legal and procedural disputes, including objections from several state attorneys general, have cast doubt on this interpretation.

The ERA, first proposed in 1923, aims to ensure legal equality between sexes, stating that rights “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Although Congress approved the amendment in 1972, it included a seven-year deadline for ratification by three-fourths of the states, later extended to 1982. By that time, only 35 states had ratified the ERA, and five of those states had rescinded their approvals, leaving the amendment short of the required 38-state threshold. Despite renewed momentum in the 21st century, legal challenges assert that the ratification deadline renders the 1972 proposal invalid.

Opponents of recognizing the ERA argue that procedural deadlines and rescinded ratifications cannot be ignored. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and officials from Louisiana and South Dakota have urged adherence to previous court rulings that upheld the ratification deadlines and prevented the National Archivist from certifying the ERA. These rulings argue that any attempt to bypass the established amendment process undermines constitutional integrity and would require Congress to start the process anew.

Supporters contend that the amendment’s goals are more urgent than ever, emphasizing its potential impact on workplace protections, gender discrimination laws, and policies affecting women’s rights. They also argue that Virginia’s ratification in 2020 fulfills the amendment’s requirements, dismissing claims that deadlines imposed by Congress hold binding legal force. These advocates cite modern legal scholarship, as well as the American Bar Association, which views the ERA as meeting constitutional ratification standards.

The battle over the ERA reflects broader debates about constitutional interpretation and the evolving scope of gender equality in American law. As the deadline for potential federal certification approaches, the nation watches closely to see how this long-standing issue will unfold.

Article by multiple RFHC contributors.

---