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

Shrek

(4,369 posts)
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 11:25 AM Nov 5

9th Circuit: Equal Rights Amendment is not in the Constitution

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/04/24-369.pdf

Valame alleges that the MSSA’s 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 Valame’s 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
Did you think it was ratified? iemanja Nov 5 #1
I didn't Shrek Nov 5 #3
I see. nt iemanja Nov 5 #4
That should put the nonsense to bed FBaggins Nov 5 #5
It's not in the Constitution despite being ratified by 38 states. BlueTsunami2018 Nov 5 #2
Late update after reading it - It turns out the ruling was made back in July FBaggins Friday #6

FBaggins

(28,577 posts)
5. That should put the nonsense to bed
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 11:48 AM
Nov 5

RBG’s 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.
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 11:31 AM
Nov 5

Because of some provision in the proposal that states it had to be ratified by 1982.

It’s 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
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 08:35 AM
Friday

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).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»9th Circuit: Equal Right...