Federal Judge Rules ERA Ratification Deadline Still Applies

Equal Rights Amendment Demonstration
Credit: Cornell University / Flickr

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled last Friday that votes made by state legislators in recent years cannot legally ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). She ruled that the March 22, 1979 deadline set by Congress when the amendment was originally sent to the states remains valid today.

Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia had sued the Archivist of the United States in federal district court for refusing to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution. Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020 each voted to ratify the expired amendment. Contreras's ruling agreed with the defendant states that the deadline set in the Proposing Clause of the ERA resolution is legally binding.

Contreras did not rule on whether states have the right to rescind ratification before a deadline, or if Congress has the right to retroactively remove the deadline with new legislation.

The latter is exactly with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) intends to do. He announced on March 2 that the House will vote on a measure claiming to remove the expired ERA deadline. He said that the measure should see a vote during the week of March 15.

Douglas D. Johnson, senior policy advisor for National Right to Life and director of its ERA Project, said, “Democratic congressional leaders and attorneys general are part of a political-pressure campaign to intimidate the federal courts into permitting them to air-drop the long-expired ERA into the Constitution. Today, a federal judge appointed by President Obama ignored the political pressures and unflinchingly enforced the Constitution.”

Johnson continued: “The upcoming votes in Congress are another chapter in the political-pressure campaign directed at the courts. The Constitution does not empower Congress to time travel to 1972 to resuscitate a long-dead constitutional amendment.”

The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after Virginia voted to "ratify" the ERA, said that she believes the amendment should have a "new beginning. I'd like it to start over." She agreed that the deadline had passed decades ago, and there are many legal issues with a late ratification. Ginsburg noted, “how can you disregard states that said, ‘We’ve changed our minds’?” Five states have done so.

According to National Right to Life, the 1972 ERA as written could be interpreted to end state and federal laws restricting abortion in any way. Additionally, it could be construed to require state and federal programs to fund abortion.

National Right to Life released a fact sheet showing the connections between the 1972 ERA and abortion. To view or download it, click here.

Click here to read more.