Editing Equal Rights Amendment (section)

== Lawsuits regarding ratification ==
=== Alabama lawsuit opposing ratification ===
On December 16, 2019, the states of Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota sued to prevent further ratifying of the Equal Rights Amendment. [[Alabama Attorney General]] [[Steve Marshall (politician)|Steve Marshall]] stated, "The people had seven years to consider the ERA, and they rejected it. To sneak it into the Constitution through this illegal process would undermine the very basis for our constitutional order."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/531d19366921e8b698de5770e58c34fc|title=3 states file lawsuit seeking to block ERA ratification|date=2019-12-18|publisher=Associated Press |access-date=2020-01-20}}</ref>

South Dakota Attorney General [[Jason Ravnsborg]] stated in a press release:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=2216|title=South Dakota joins Alabama and Louisiana in legal challenge to stop activists from illegally amending the U.S. Constitution|publisher=South Dakota Attorney General|date=December 18, 2019|access-date=December 18, 2019}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=The South Dakota Legislature ratified the ERA in 1973, but in 1979 passed Senate Joint Resolution 2 which required the ERA be ratified in the original time limit set by Congress or be rescinded. Because thirty-eight states failed to ratify the amendment by March 31, 1979 the South Dakota Legislature rescinded its ratification of the ERA. It is the duty of the Attorney General to defend and support our Legislature. It would be a disservice to the citizens of South Dakota to ignore this obligation of my office.
This is an issue of following the rule of law, the rules that our founding fathers put into place to protect us from government making decisions without the consent or support of "we the people". If Congress wants to pass an updated version of the ERA, taking into consideration all the changes in the law since 1972, I have no doubt the South Dakota Legislature would debate the merits in a new ratification process. An amendment to the Constitution should not be done by procedural nuances decades after the deadline prescribed by Congress, but through an open and transparent process where each State knows the ramifications of its actions.}}

On January 6, 2020, the Department of Justice [[Office of Legal Counsel]] official Steven Engel issued an opinion in response to the lawsuit by Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota, stating that "We conclude that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1232501/download|title=Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment|publisher=Office of Legal Counsel|date=January 6, 2020|access-date=January 8, 2020}}</ref> The OLC argued in part that Congress had the authority to impose a deadline for the ERA and that it did not have the authority to retroactively extend the deadline once it had expired.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-justice-department-says-virginia-action-would-come-too-late-to-ratify-era/2020/01/08/3ebe2642-324f-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html|title=U.S. Justice Department says Virginia action would come too late to ratify ERA|last=Sullivan|first=Patricia|date=January 9, 2020|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=January 9, 2020}}</ref>

On February 27, 2020, the States of Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota entered into a joint stipulation and voluntary dismissal with the Archivist of the United States. The joint stipulation incorporated the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's opinion; stated that the Archivist would not certify the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment and stated that if the Department of Justice ever concludes that the 1972 ERA Resolution is still pending and that the Archivist therefore has authority to certify the ERA's adoption ... the Archivist will make no certification concerning ratification of the ERA until at least 45 days following the announcement of the Department of Justice's conclusion, absent a court order compelling him to do so sooner."<ref>See, ''State of Alabama, et al vs. David S. Ferriero'', Joint Stipulation and Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, Case No. 7:19-cv-2032-LSC, document number 23, filed February 27, 2020</ref> On March 2, 2020, Federal District Court Judge [[L. Scott Coogler]] entered an order regarding the Joint Stipulation and Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal, granting the dismissal without prejudice.<ref>See, ''State of Alabama, et al vs. David S. Ferriero'', Order, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, Case No. 7:19-cv-2032-LSC, document number 27, filed March 2, 2020</ref>

=== Massachusetts lawsuit supporting ratification ===
On January 7, 2020, a complaint was filed by Equal Means Equal, The Yellow Roses and Katherine Weitbrecht in the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts]] against the Archivist of the United States, seeking to have him count the three most recently ratifying states and certify the ERA as having become part of the United States Constitution.<ref>See, ''Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero'', United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Case # 1:20-cv-10015-DJC, document number 1, January 7, 2020</ref> On August 6, 2020, Judge [[Denise Casper]] granted the Archivist's motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have [[Standing (law)|standing]] to sue to compel the Archivist to certify and so she could not rule on the merits of the case.<ref>See, ''Equal Means Equal et al v. Ferriero'', United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order, Case No. 20-cv-10015-DJC, August 6, 2020</ref> On August 21, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]] and on September 2, 2020, the plaintiffs asked the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] to hear this case.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/20-1802|title=Equal Means Equal, et al v. Ferriero|website=Justia Dockets & Filings}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://demand.equalmeansequal.org/page/-/Equal%20Means%20Equal%20Update%20Sept%201%20800%20pm.pdf|title=PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI|date=September 2, 2020|work=Equal Means Equal|access-date=2020-11-13|archive-date=September 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916201425/https://demand.equalmeansequal.org/page/-/Equal%20Means%20Equal%20Update%20Sept%201%20800%20pm.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied the request to intervene before the First Circuit gives its decision.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/equal-rights-amendment-case-denied-supreme-court-hearing-for-now|title=Equal Rights Amendment Denied Supreme Court Hearing for Now (1)|website=Bloomberg Law}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf|title=Order in pending cases|date=October 13, 2020|publisher=United States Supreme Court|access-date=2020-11-13}}</ref>  On June 29, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision that "the plaintiffs have not met their burden at the pleading stage with respect to those federal constitutional requirements; we affirm the order dismissing their suit for lack of standing."<ref>See, "Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero, United States Court of Appeals, for the First Circuit, Case #20-1802, June 29, 2021</ref> An ''en banc'' rehearing request was denied on January 4, 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |title=First Circuit Declines to Rehear Equal Rights Amendment Case (1) |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/first-circuit-rejects-rehearing-on-equal-rights-amendment-appeal |access-date=2022-08-21 |website=Bloomberg Law |language=en}}</ref>

=== 2020–2023 lawsuit in the District of Columbia supporting ratification ===
On January 30, 2020, the attorneys general of Virginia, Illinois and Nevada filed a lawsuit in the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]] to require the [[Archivist of the United States]] to "carry out his statutory duty of recognizing the complete and final adoption" of the ERA as the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/equal-rights-amendment-virginia-litigation-trnd/index.html|title=Three Democratic attorneys general sue to have Equal Rights Amendment added to Constitution|first1=Veronica|last1=Stracqualursi|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=January 30, 2020}}</ref>
On February 19, 2020, the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee moved to intervene in the case.<ref>See, ''Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ferriero'', United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case number 1:20-cv-00242-RC, document number 10, February 19, 2020</ref> On March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff States (Virginia, Illinois and Nevada) filed a memorandum in opposition to the five states seeking to intervene.<ref>See, ''Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ferriero'', United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case number 1:20-cv-00242-RC, document number 21, March 10, 2020</ref> On May 7, 2020, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the states do not have [[Standing (law)|standing]] to bring the case to trial as they have to show any "concrete injury", nor that the case was [[Ripeness|ripe]] for review.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/09/politics/equal-rights-amendment-justice-department-dismiss-lawsuit/index.html|title=Trump administration asks court to dismiss lawsuit to add ERA to US Constitution|first=Veronica|last=Stracqualursi|date=May 9, 2020|access-date=May 9, 2020|publisher=[[CNN]]}}</ref>

On June 12, 2020, the District Court granted the Intervening states (Alabama, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee) motion to intervene in the case.<ref>See, ''Commonwealth of Virginia v. Ferriero'', United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case number 1:20-cv-00242-RC, document numbers 33 and [https://2ovrcr1ntdy0qupom33icsxw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DE-34-Memo-Order-Allowing-States-to-Intervene.pdf 34] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816000323/https://2ovrcr1ntdy0qupom33icsxw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DE-34-Memo-Order-Allowing-States-to-Intervene.pdf |date=August 16, 2021}}, June 12, 2020</ref> On March 5, 2021, federal judge [[Rudolph Contreras]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]] ruled that the ratification period for the ERA "expired long ago" and that three states' recent ratifications had come too late to be counted in the amendment's favor.<ref>{{cite news|title=Federal judge says deadline to ratify ERA 'expired long ago' in setback to advocates' efforts |last=Stracqualursi|first=Veronica |publisher=CNN|date=March 6, 2021|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/politics/equal-rights-amendment-virginia-lawsuit/index.html|access-date=March 6, 2021}}</ref><ref>''Virginia v. Ferriero'', [https://casetext.com/case/virginia-v-ferriero-1 525 F. Supp. 2d 36] (D.D.C. 2021).</ref>

On May 3, 2021, the plaintiff states appealed the ruling to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Dinan|first=Stephen|date=May 5, 2021|title=Three states ask federal appeals court to count them in ERA ratification|work=[[The Washington Times]]|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/5/illinois-nevada-virginia-ask-federal-appeals-court/|access-date=May 16, 2021}}</ref> Virginia withdrew from the lawsuit in February 2022.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Virginia's new AG pulls state from effort to recognize ERA ratification |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/02/18/virginia-era-appeal-withdrawl/ |access-date=2022-08-21 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Oral arguments were held on September 28, 2022,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/fullcalendar?OpenView&term=current&count=1000&date=2022-09-10 |title=Oral Argument Calendar}}</ref> before a panel composed by judges [[Robert L. Wilkins|Wilkins]], [[Neomi Rao|Rao]] and [[J. Michelle Childs|Childs]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/fullcalendar |title=Oral Argument Calendar}}</ref> On February 28, 2023, the panel ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove the ERA deadline invalid.<ref>{{cite web|last=Marr|first=Chris|title=Equal Rights Amendment Backers Defeated in D.C. Court Appeal|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/equal-rights-amendment-backers-lose-federal-d-c-circuit-appeal|date=February 28, 2023|website=Bloomberg Law}}</ref><ref>''Illinois v. Ferriero'', [https://casetext.com/case/illinois-v-ferriero 60 F.4th 704] (D.C. Cir. 2023).</ref>

=== 2023–2024 California lawsuit supporting ratification ===
On June 23, 2023, Vikram Valame filed a complaint against the [[Selective Service System]] for harms caused by the [[Military Selective Service Act]]. The plaintiff argued that he was "subject to criminal prosecution, fines and imprisonment" under "unconstitutional registration and reporting requirements" and denied "valuable educational and job opportunities" due to failure to register.<ref>See, ''Vikram Valame vs. Joseph Robinette Biden, et al'', Complaint, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-03018, document number 1, filed June 20, 2023</ref> Valame argued that the ERA had been validly ratified as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, contending that Congress's deadline for ratification was unconstitutional under Article V and that states had no ability to revoke their ratifications.<ref>See, ''Vikram Valame vs. Joseph Robinette Biden, et al'', Complaint, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-03018, document number 30, filed September 15, 2023</ref>

On January 20, 2024, Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that "no 28th Amendment appears in the Constitution" and that the plaintiff "cannot state a claim for relief under a constitutional amendment that does not exist."<ref>See, ''Vikram Valame vs. Joseph Robinette Biden, et al'', Complaint, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-03018, document number 61, filed January 20, 2024</ref> Valame filed a notice of appeal to the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] on the same day as the district court's ruling.<ref>See, ''Vikram Valame vs. Joseph Robinette Biden, et al'', Complaint, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-03018, document number 63, filed January 20, 2024</ref> As of early 2024, the case was pending before the Ninth Circuit.