Editing Equal Rights Amendment (section)

=== 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.