The Law's Future: An Era-Defined Legal System

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. Despite receiving the required number of state ratifications, the ERA is not yet ratified.

The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923 by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, two leaders of the women's suffrage movement. Since then, it has been reintroduced in every session of Congress, gaining bipartisan support. In 1972, the ERA was passed by Congress and sent to the state legislatures for ratification, with a seven-year deadline for approval by three-quarters of the states.

While the ERA initially gained momentum, it faced opposition from conservative activists and was only ratified by 35 states by the original deadline in 1979. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no new states signed on, and five states rescinded their prior approval. The ERA's fate now rests with Congress, the courts, and the American people, as they work to resolve the legal and procedural questions surrounding its ratification.

Despite the uncertainty, the ERA continues to garner support, with recent polls showing high levels of public approval. Advocates argue that the ERA is necessary to address pervasive gender discrimination and ensure equal rights for women and other marginalized genders.

The ERA's ratification timeline

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in Congress in 1923, but it wasn't until 1971 that it was reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. The following year, it was approved by the U.S. Senate and sent to the state legislatures for ratification.

The ERA was ratified by 30 states in the first year, but it fell victim to the emerging conservative political movement. By 1978, it had received only 35 of the necessary 38 approvals required by Article V, so Congress passed a bill extending the deadline to June 30, 1982. However, no new states ratified the ERA before that date.

In 1994, a "three-state strategy" for achieving ERA ratification was developed, and in 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it. Illinois followed in 2018, and in 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA.

However, there are still hurdles to the ERA's path. The ratification deadlines set by Congress have lapsed, and five states have acted to rescind their prior approval. These issues have led to ongoing legal and political debates about the validity of the ERA's ratification.

The three-state strategy for ERA ratification

The strategy was first explored by the ERA Summit, a small national volunteer organisation of ERA advocates, following the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment (also known as the Madison Amendment), which was added to the Constitution more than 200 years after its passage by Congress with no time limit attached.

The strategy is based on the idea that the ERA's existing ratifications are still valid and that states can continue to ratify the amendment even after the deadline has passed. This interpretation argues that Article V, which outlines the process for constitutional amendments, does not mention a time limit, and that Congress has demonstrated the ability to extend the deadline. Additionally, precedent with the 14th and 15th Amendments shows that state votes to retract their ratifications have never been accepted as valid.

The first three-state strategy bill was introduced in 1994 by Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ). The bill stated that when three additional states ratified the ERA, the House of Representatives would take any necessary action to verify that ratification had been achieved. Similar bills have been introduced in subsequent years, with the most recent being S.J. Res. 4 and H.J. Res. 25 in the 118th Congress (2023-2024). These bills aim to invalidate any deadline on the ERA's ratification and affirm its validity once 38 states have approved the amendment.

As of 2024, the ERA has received the necessary 38 ratifications by three-quarters of the states, with the most recent ratifications coming from Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020. However, there is still ongoing debate and legal challenges regarding the validity of these ratifications due to expired deadlines and state rescissions.

The ERA's legal status

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923 and has been the subject of much debate and contention since.

Arguments For and Against the ERA

Supporters of the ERA argue that it is necessary to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. They contend that the ERA would end legal distinctions between men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and other areas. Additionally, they argue that the ERA would provide permanent protection against laws that discriminate on the basis of sex and/or gender.

Opponents of the ERA, on the other hand, argue that it would remove protections for women and subject them to conscription and military combat roles. They also believe that men and women are already equal, especially with the passage of laws such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Recent Developments

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the ERA, with Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia becoming the latest states to ratify the amendment in 2017, 2018, and 2020, respectively. This has sparked renewed efforts to get the ERA adopted as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. However, as of January 2025, the ERA has not been certified and published as part of the Constitution.

The ERA's impact on reproductive rights

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. The ERA has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982, and its advocates argue that it would provide federal protection for women's equal civil rights and bodily autonomy.

On the other hand, opponents of the ERA argue that it would remove protections from women and open them up to being drafted into the military. They also argue that the ERA would guarantee the possibility of women being subject to conscription and required to have military combat roles in future wars.

The impact of the ERA on reproductive rights remains a subject of discussion and debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and the general public.

The ERA's impact on women in the military

The impact of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) on women in the military is a complex and multifaceted issue. While the ERA aims to guarantee equal rights for women, its potential impact on women serving in the armed forces has been a subject of debate and discussion. Here are four to six paragraphs examining this topic:

The ERA's potential impact on women in the military has been a point of contention, with some arguing that it would remove protections for women and expose them to combat roles and the draft. However, it's important to note that the lack of an ERA does not inherently protect women from these aspects of military service. The ERA would ensure that legal rights are not denied or abridged based on sex, providing a constitutional remedy against gender discrimination. This could have significant implications for women in the military, who have historically faced challenges and barriers in their service.

Women have a long history of serving in the U.S. military, dating back to the American Revolution. While they were not always permitted to enlist officially, they found ways to contribute, such as by accompanying soldiers, providing medical care, and even fighting in disguise. In recent decades, the number of women in the military has increased significantly, and they now make up a substantial proportion of the armed forces. As of 2024, women comprise 17.5% of the active-duty force and hold positions in all branches and at various leadership levels.

The ERA could have a direct impact on addressing issues of gender discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for women in the military. Currently, women in the military face challenges such as sexual harassment and assault, and their access to career paths and protection against discrimination is not guaranteed. The ERA would provide a constitutional framework to address these issues and ensure that women have equal rights and protections under the law. Additionally, the ERA could help address issues related to pregnancy and motherhood, which have often been a barrier to women's military service.

The inclusion of women in combat roles has been a contentious issue, and the ERA's potential impact on this aspect of military service is worth considering. While the Department of Defense dropped its ban on women in combat roles in 2015, the integration process has been slow. The ERA could accelerate this process and ensure that women have equal opportunities to serve in combat positions if they choose to do so. However, there are concerns about the physical demands and privacy policies associated with integrating women into certain combat roles.

The ERA's impact on military draft policies is another area of discussion. While the lack of an ERA does not protect women from the draft, it is worth noting that only males are currently required to register for selective service. The inclusion of women in the draft has been a subject of debate, and the ERA could influence this conversation. However, it's important to note that the draft has not been implemented in recent conflicts, and any changes to draft policies would require careful consideration and planning.

Overall, the ERA has the potential to significantly impact women in the military by providing a constitutional framework for equal rights and protections. It addresses issues of gender discrimination, ensures equal opportunities, and guarantees that legal rights cannot be denied based on sex. While there are considerations and challenges associated with integrating women into certain aspects of military service, the ERA could help create a more inclusive and equitable environment for women who choose to serve their country.

Frequently asked questions