ERA’s Ratification Announced by Biden, Triggering Legal Confrontation

On March 15, 2023, President Joe Biden announced the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a historic milestone in the fight for gender equality in the United States. However, this long-awaited announcement sparked a legal confrontation, as the ratification process has been mired in controversy and legal challenges.

Controversy over ERA’s Ratification

The ERA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, was first proposed in 1923 but only gained significant traction in the 1970s. By 1979, 35 of the required 38 states had ratified the amendment, but its ratification deadline of 1982 passed without the necessary number of approvals.

In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, reigniting the debate over its validity. Opponents argued that the deadline had passed and that the amendment was no longer eligible for ratification. They also raised concerns about the potential legal consequences of retroactive ratification.

Biden’s Announcement and Legal Challenges

Undeterred by these challenges, President Biden declared in his announcement that “the ERA is the law of the land.” He directed the Justice Department to prepare a legal opinion supporting this claim and instructed federal agencies to implement the amendment.

However, several states, including Alabama and Arizona, quickly filed lawsuits challenging the validity of the ERA’s ratification. They argue that the Constitution prohibits retroactive ratification and that the amendment’s 1982 deadline remains binding.

Historical and Constitutional Significance

The ERA’s ratification is a testament to the long struggle for gender equality in the United States. If upheld in court, it would enshrine the principle of equal rights for women in the Constitution, providing a powerful tool to challenge discriminatory laws and practices.

However, the legal challenges to the ERA’s ratification raise complex constitutional questions. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the validity of the amendment, with the outcome having significant implications for the scope of constitutional rights in the United States.

Perspectives on the ERA

Expert Analysis and Journal Research

Legal scholars have expressed varying perspectives on the ERA’s ratification. Some support Biden’s claim that the amendment is valid, arguing that the Constitution allows for reasonable extensions of ratification deadlines (see“The Continuing Validity of the Equal Rights Amendment” by Tara Richards, 107 California Law Review 1651 (2019)).

Others challenge this view, arguing that the ERA’s ratification is unconstitutional due to the passage of the deadline (see“The Equal Rights Amendment: Retroactive Ratification and the Constitution” by John C. Eastman, 29 Constitutional Commentary 375 (2012)).

Conclusion

The ratification of the ERA is a watershed moment in the fight for gender equality in the United States. However, the legal challenges that have ensued have thrown its validity into doubt. The Supreme Court’s decision on the matter will have far-reaching implications for the scope of constitutional rights and the future of gender equality in the country.

The ERA’s long and contentious journey serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for social justice and the challenges that can arise in interpreting and implementing the principles of our Constitution.