A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously and squarely rejects the notion the Equal Rights Amendment is part of the Constitution

[Safiel]

Ninth Circuit Rejects ‘Meritless’ Claim that ERA Is Part of Constitution | National Review

In a brief opinion last week in Valame v. Trump, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel summarily “reject[ed] as meritless” a plaintiff’s “contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Tw…

www.nationalreview.com

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2025/07/17/24-369.pdf

Second link is to the Opinion of the Ninth Circuit three judge panel. Two of the judges are Clinton appointees, one is a Trump appointee.

The opinion is a summary dismissal, but ends with "We reject as meritless Valame’s contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."

This is in line with every Federal Court that has ruled on the issue of the ERA.

Put a stake in its heart, the ERA is dead and buried, regardless of any silly posturing to the contrary. No less than Justice Ginsburg admitted as such.

I do not post this thread either in support or against the merits of the ERA.

Whether you love or loath the ERA, it expired, unratified, LONG ago.

The only way supporters can move forward is to pass a new amendment with 67 votes in the Senate, 290 votes in the House and try to get the ratification of 38 States within the designated time limit, or smarter yet, not designate a time limit at all.

 

[BirdinHand]

or smarter yet, not designate a time limit at

Yep.

That was the fatal flaw

 

[j brown's body]

They'll never get those votes in this House or Senate.

 

[Safiel]

They'll never get those votes in this House or Senate.

Unlikely they will EVER get those votes. Unlikely Democrats will ever reach the necessary two-thirds majority needed to pass such an amendment.

 

[JBG]

At least occasionally courts do follow the law.

 

[Safiel]

Yep.

That was the fatal flaw

There is also the unresolved constitutional issue of rescissions.

While there are 38 ratifications, 6 States purported to rescind their ratifications.

The Supreme Court has never definitely ruled on whether a State can rescind their ratification of an amendment.

In this case, the rescissions ultimately did not matter, since 38 States did not ratify before the deadline.

Probably won't have the opportunity to resolve those legal questions in the near or distant future, as I doubt any Constitutional amendments will pass out of Congress in my lifetime and the life time of the next several generations following me.