Landmark Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Sparks Legal Debate As Biden Signs Executive Orders

On January 27th, 2023, President Joe Biden signed three executive orders aimed at advancing gender equality and promoting the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). This historic move has reignited legal debates surrounding the amendment's validity and the potential implications of its ratification.

The Equal Rights Amendment

The ERA was first proposed in 1923 and its core text is: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." It has been passed by both chambers of Congress and sent to the states for ratification on multiple occasions, but it fell short of the 38 state threshold required for adoption.

In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, meeting the requirement set by Article V of the U.S. Constitution. However, legal challenges ensued, with opponents arguing that the amendment's initial ratification deadline had passed and that any subsequent ratifications were invalid.

Biden's Executive Orders

President Biden's executive orders address these legal challenges and underscore the administration's commitment to gender equality:

• Establishment of a Gender Policy Council: Aims to coordinate federal gender policy efforts and ensure that all Americans enjoy equal opportunities.
• Implementation of the ERA in Federal Programs: Directs federal agencies to interpret existing laws and policies consistent with the principles of the ERA, regardless of its formal ratification status.
• States' Compliance with the ERA: Requests states to review their laws and policies to ensure compliance with the ERA and to take appropriate steps toward ratification.

Legal Debate and Perspectives

The signing of these executive orders has reignited legal debates surrounding the ERA's validity.

Proponents' Arguments

• Valid Ratification: Supporters maintain that Virginia's ratification is valid and that the ERA has now met the requirements for adoption.
• Congressional Intent: They argue that Congress intended the ERA to be adopted without a time limit and that subsequent ratifications are permissible.
• Equality Imperative: Proponents emphasize the importance of gender equality and the ERA as a necessary step towards achieving it.

Opponents' Arguments

• Unconstitutional Delay: Opponents contend that the long delay between the initial ratification process and Virginia's ratification renders the amendment void.
• Procedural Irregularities: They argue that some states that rescinded their ratifications did so procedurally correctly and that these withdrawals should be recognized.
• States' Rights: Opponents emphasize the rights of states to determine their own laws and policies, and they view the ERA as an encroachment on state sovereignty.

Expert Perspectives

Legal scholars and experts have expressed diverse opinions on the legal challenges surrounding the ERA.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law: "The ERA is a transformative amendment that will bring about real and lasting change for women in this country."

Professor Michael McConnell, Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center: "The ERA's ratification is invalid because Congress set a time limit and it was not met."

Professor Khiara Bridges, Professor of Law at Berkeley Law: "The ERA is essential for protecting women's rights and advancing gender equality. We must continue to fight for its ratification."

Judicial Review

The legal debate over the ERA's validity is likely to continue in court. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue in the near future, and its decision will have significant implications for the amendment's status and the broader landscape of gender equality.

Conclusion

The ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment has sparked a complex legal debate that centers on the principles of gender equality, federalism, and constitutional interpretation. President Biden's executive orders underscore the administration's commitment to advancing these principles, but their ultimate impact will depend on the outcome of ongoing legal challenges.

The ERA remains a symbol of the ongoing struggle for gender equality in the United States. Its ratification would represent a landmark achievement, but it is crucial to engage in thoughtful and informed discussions about its legal complexities and implications. As the debate continues, we must strive to ensure that the path towards a more just and equitable society is paved with the principles of equality, fairness, and the unwavering pursuit of a better future for all.