Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums9th Circuit: Equal Rights Amendment is not in the Constitution
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/04/24-369.pdfValame alleges that the MSSAs requirement that men, but not women, register with the Selective Service System violates his rights under the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which Valame contends was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. However, the ERA was not ratified by three-fourths of the States prior to the deadline set by Congress, June 30, 1982, and the Archivist of the United States did not publish or certify the ERA. See Illinois v. Ferriero, 60 F.4th 704, 710-13 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Valames claims under the ERA for failure to state a plausible claim. See Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory).
President Biden previously declared that the 28th Amendment is "the law of the land."
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
9th Circuit: Equal Rights Amendment is not in the Constitution (Original Post)
Shrek
Nov 5
OP
iemanja
(57,135 posts)1. Did you think it was ratified?
But many here did when President Biden announced it.
FBaggins
(28,577 posts)5. That should put the nonsense to bed
RBGs statement on it forever closed the door for me
but some here wanted to hold onto illogical hope.
FYI - it was a unanimous decision that included two Clinton judges
BlueTsunami2018
(4,754 posts)2. It's not in the Constitution despite being ratified by 38 states.
Because of some provision in the proposal that states it had to be ratified by 1982.
Its not currently recognized as an amendment.
FBaggins
(28,577 posts)6. Late update after reading it - It turns out the ruling was made back in July
It just wasn't published (though there was some reporting at the time that I never saw)... which means that it couldn't be used as precedent. Someone must have pressured them to take this additional step.
It looks like more than a dozen federal district courts have addressed the issue (with unanimous results like those seen here).