CAN THE DRAFT SAVE THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT? Forum planned for Saturday June 13th with Wendy Murphy!

 FEMINIST FORUM: CAN THE DRAFT SAVE THE  EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT?

Saturday, June 13  •  11 AM – 1 PM

Get your tickets HERE:

On Saturday, June 13th at 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time/2:00 p.m. Eastern, join us for a dive into the latest ERA court case and arguments for legal equality for our sex!

This Zoom forum features renowned feminist attorney WENDY MURPHY and should be a stimulating presentation and discussion!

 

WENDY MURPHY is adjunct professor of Sexual Violence and Law Reform at New England Law in Boston where she also co-directs the Women’s and Children’s Advocacy Project (WCAP) under the Center for Law and Social Responsibility. WCAP runs the Judicial Language Project, and the Hate Crimes Against Women project, WCAP also files amicus briefs and engages in public interest litigation to advance the rights of women and children. On January 7, 2020, WCAP filed a first-in-the-nation federal lawsuit to validate the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Massachusetts federal court.

Wendy is an impact litigator who practices in state and federal courts and specializes in advancing the constitutional and civil rights of women and children. She has authored numerous scholarly articles including a landmark piece explaining the legal relationship between sexual assault on campus and Title IX. Her most recent law review article is a feminist critical re-examination of the history of women’s struggle for equality and is entitled, “Unequal Protection of the Laws for Women is Constitutional Terrorism, So How Come Nobody Knows about It?”

She has also appeared on television as a legal analyst for many years and has worked for NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News and has provided legal analysis for print and television media. She is the author of two books, “And Justice For Some,” published by Penguin/Sentinel in 2007 and “Oh No He Didn’t: Brilliant Women and the Men Who Took Credit for Their Work,” published by Cynren Press in 2024.

Wendy’s recent article in the Boston Herald, “Unequal draft, unequal rights: Automatic registration for men means women will lose standing in fight for rights” addresses the issues of the Equal Means Equal v. Donald J. Trump case that she will cover in this seminar.

 

FIST forums are held remotely on Zoom, and are women only, interactive events, allowing for time for questions and discussion. Registrants will be provided with a zoom link closer to the event date. Please arrive ten minutes before the scheduled start time. Our forums are also recorded and uploaded to our You Tube channel,  for later viewing by women and men.

Get your tickets HERE:

Celebrate Women’s Rights on July 4, 2026

On July 4, 2026, the nation’s semiquincentennial, we are enlisting women and men across the country to acknowledge the fully-ratified Equal Rights Amendment by reading a Women’s Declaration of Independence 2.0 (an updated version of the Declaration of Sentiments) and singing The ERA Song (sung to the tune of America the Beautiful) and the Battle Hymn of Equality (sung to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic) and recording both and posting them online. Anyone wishing to do so can gather together 2 or 3 friends, a group of women, a choir, or any configuration they choose to read and perform the songs and may download them here.

Women’s Declaration of Independence 2.0 reads as follows:

When, in the course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one-half of the people
to call a nation back to its own truths,
we declare the causes which compel us to speak.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all persons are created equal;
that women are persons;
and that government exists to secure these truths—
not to delay or deny them.

The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in stone.
Yet they have never applied fully to women,
because women have never had full legal equality
under the United States Constitution.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment promised equal protection,
it has never been applied equally to women.

And although the Equal Rights Amendment—
ratified in 2020—establishes equality,
it has not been implemented.

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Women bring forth life,
sustain families,
serve their communities,
and defend this nation.
To deny them constitutional equality
is to deny their dignity, humanity, and rights.

Yet courts apply a lesser standard—
intermediate scrutiny—
to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex,
allowing inequality to continue.
The highest standard, strict scrutiny,
remains unavailable to women.

As a result, women are denied equal protection,
economic equality,
and full protection from violence and exploitation.

These injustices are not accidental—
they are legally authorized.

We declare:
women are equal citizens of this Republic.
Equality must be clear in law
and in its enforcement.

We call upon the people to demand:
the full implementation and enforcement
of the Equal Rights Amendment—
by all courts,
and all government officials.

A nation that treats women unequally
cannot be a democracy.

Therefore, we declare:
the Equal Rights Amendment is part of the Constitution.
It is the law.

Women will no longer accept inequality.
We demand equality now—
nothing more, nothing less.

In the spirit of 1776, the Declaration of Sentiments of 1848, and the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in 2020.

Drafted in 2026 by a Committee of the National ERA Publication Task Force. org.

#untilwomenareequal

#wewillnotbesilent

For more information on this campaign, go to: https://untilwomenareequal.org/

AN UPDATE ON ERA LITIGATION – SPECIAL GUEST POST BY WENDY MURPHY

By Wendy Murphy, J. D., Impact Litigator

Last week we received a ruling in our lawsuit (Equal Means Equal v. Donald Trump) to establish women’s full legal equality by challenging the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act, which forbids women to register for the military draft. It is a very rare example of a law that explicitly treats women and men differently. Most instances where women suffer unequal treatment are in the enforcement of laws, and in the actions and inactions of government officials.

As expected, the judge ruled that we do have standing because the primary plaintiff is a woman who tried to register for the draft, but was rejected solely because of her sex.

Because women have standing, the court had to address the merits. This is vitally important because courts routinely deny women standing as a way of avoiding having to address the issue of women’s inequality. This keeps the problem of women’s inequality invisible, which obviously contributes to the problem of activism. Simply put, most women aren’t even aware that the Constitution has established them as unequal second-class citizens. This helps to maintain women’s subjugation because women will not fight for equality if they don’t know they don’t have it. They will, instead, suffer horrendous injustices, and feel hopeless and upset, but never come to understand that the primary cause of their suffering is the Constitution.

Because standing is so important, we are happy to have prevailed on the standing issue, especially considering that the government spent most of its brief arguing that we lacked standing.

As for the merits, the court ruled that it cannot address the question of whether the Selective Service Act is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has already ruled – in 1981 – that it is, and only the Supreme Court can reverse itself. This ruling is inconsistent with what a different judge ruled on the exact same issue a few years ago in New Jersey where the court said that the Supreme Court’s decision is not binding precedent because the conditions under which that ruling was decided have changed.

The court also ruled that the ERA is not valid because the deadline expired long before the last state ratified. Again, we were not surprised by this, and to some extent we wanted this to be the ruling because it enables us to appeal.

An appeal is appealing (pardon the pun) because it is an opportunity yet again to show the federal courts that many people support our view that the ERA is valid, and while courts have yet to agree, we will not stop fighting until the Supreme Court decides the issue.

We do intend to appeal, which  means the First Circuit Court of Appeals will soon decide the issue.

We will have an amicus brief and welcome all the help we can get.

Meanwhile, we will also be filing similar cases in other jurisdictions. It is important that we file more cases soon because in December 2026, women will no longer be able to achieve standing on the Selective Service Act challenges. This is because Congress quietly inserted into the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act in December 2025, changing the registration process so that men will be registered automatically for the draft when they turn 18. For now, they must fill out a form, but in December the government will do that for them. This will deprive women of standing because they can no longer suffer the “legal injury” of being rejected by the government, and it is not enough of an “injury” to say the law itself harms women by excluding them.

This law change was done solely because of our case, so it’s a good sign that they are paying attention and so worried about women filing lawsuits that they bothered to burden Congress with the task of making the draft registration process automatic even though we haven’t had a draft since 1973 and won’t likely have another one anytime soon.

We take such small victories very seriously –

Sometimes victories don’t look like victories, but in high stakes litigation, anything that teaches us something or helps educate the public is important.

See also Wendy’s article in the Boston Globe: Unequal Draft, Unequal Rights

Who are the Men Who Oppose Women’s Equality?

Well, the list is quite long indeed. There are the unabashed women haters of the Manosphere, the Broligarchs, the corporate moguls, the tech billionaires, the pornography pushers, the pimps, the johns, the sex traffickers, the Evangelicals, the Catholic church, the Christian Nationalists, the Dominionists, the fundamentalists and male supremacists of every variety of patriarchal religion, the incels, rapists, pedophiles, and lest we forget, the trans-identified fetishists and autogynephiles, sex addicts, and sadists.

All across the political spectrum, women are commodified, vilified, debased, silenced, dehumanized, and sentenced to second-class citizenship and would be rendered handmaidens of the Right, transmaidens of the Left if these men had their way. Women’s agency, bodily sovereignty, freedom, and autonomy are restricted on the one hand, and exploited on the other, but denigrated and dismissed by both. From the bedroom to the boardroom, women are treated as nothing more than objects to be manipulated and used. The tyranny of the ruling sex class of men, however they ‘identify’, reveals itself not only in the handling of the Epstein files and case, but in the staggering statistics:

  • Over 4 women a week were murdered in California in 2020; now there are 4 women a day being murdered in the U.S.
  • Over 298.000 rapes of women were reported in the U.S. in 2020
  • Spousal abuse of women is estimated at 4.8 million every year
  • Approximately 1 million women are stalked annually in the U.S.
  • Over 78% of sexual harassment charges were filed by women between 2018-2021
  • 7 in 10 human trafficking victims are women and girls
  • Over 500,000 cases of female genital mutilation have occurred or are at risk of occurring in the U.S.
  • Abortion rights and birth control are increasingly under attack, risking women’s health and lives
  • “Women in every state report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children” according to NOW
  • Child marriage is still prevalent in the U.S., 87% of victims of which are girls
  • Women still earn around 82 cents to every dollar men earn
  • Single women and mothers with children are the two fastest-growing groups of people experiencing homelessness in the United States
  • Sexual assault victims are overwhelmingly female and their assailants are male
  • Women and girls’ safe spaces are being invaded by trans-identified males, including prisons where female prisoners are being assaulted and raped
  • Women and girls’ achievements, opportunities, endorsements, scholarships, and trophies are being stolen by mediocre male athletes – over 600 individuals in 29 different sports have been affected
  • Girls are the fastest growing group to be medicalized, sterilized, and mutilated by sex-rejecting “gender affirming care”

See:

Women Count USA

Domestic Violence Abuse Rates

Violence Against Women Statistics

Human Trafficking in the USA

FGM Statistics

Crisis in Family Courts

Child Marriage

Gender Pay Gap

Women and Homelessness

UN Report on Effect of Trans-identified Males in Female Sports

How the Debate Over Men in Women’s Sports Both Obscured and Advanced Sport Science

The Female Category – WHAM (Women’s Hockey Assoc. of Minnesota)

California transgender convict pulled from female prison for alleged rape

DOC employee reports men are claiming to be women to transfer prisons

USA: Almost 50% of Trans Inmates in Federal Custody for Sex Offences

https://washingtonstand.com/news/pornhubs-year-in-review-sextrafficking-abuse-and-age-verification

No platforming and Silencing of Women in Academia

Special Report on Trans Youth

Irreversible Damage

If you’re wondering why the system enables this abuse and exploitation, and why there is little to no accountability, read this:

If We Win, This Changes Everything

And join us on March 24th, 2026 2:00 pm to listen to oral arguments on the Equal Means Equal vs. Donald J. Trump case scheduled to be heard before Judge William G Young in the Boston Division of the US District Court of Massachusetts.  At that time, the Court will hear arguments on the Trump Administration’s Motion to Dismiss in the matter of Equal Means Equal, et al v Trump, et al.

For those unable to attend in person, please register at this link, for that date. Registration will open two days prior to the hearing.

https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html

Tell PBS News Hour to Interview Equal Means Equal

PBS News Hour recently aired some segments entitled “On Democracy” wherein they failed to acknowledge the fully-ratified Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment, in addition to other errors and omissions in their reporting. They also interviewed Colleen Shogun, the previous National Archivist, without mentioning her failure to publish the ERA onto the Constitution, as was her duty. Equal Means Equal protested this failure of Shogun and the Biden Administration at the National Archives in January of this year.

The Green Alliance for Sex-Based Rights has posted a letter it penned to PBS in this regard, and are calling for supporters of the ERA to write and call PBS to get Wendy Murphy, J.D., Kamala Lopez, CEO, and Arlaine Rockey, Legal Consultant, of Equal Means Equal on the show. If EME gets on the show, it can correct the reporting by PBS News Hour  and update their viewers on current cases EME lawyers have filed to validate the ERA in the courts, like Equal Means Equal v. Donald J. Trump.

We urge our members and allies to pressure PBS News Hour to get Equal Means Equal on their show. Women need to unite behind securing Equality and end the second-class handmaiden citizenship to which we are currently subjected. #ERAis28A!!

Equal Means Equal v. Donald J. Trump

Equal Means Equal has been steadfastly pursuing validation of the Equal Rights Amendment, and most recently filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. The reason for the lawsuit is in response to a case brought by a man in California who is attempting to use the ERA to force women to register for the draft. He is arguing that the ERA is valid, but does not challenge the level of judicial review, which if it remains at the intermediate level, keeps women in second-class status. The entire purpose of the ERA is to give women strict scrutiny, the gold standard of judicial review, which other ‘suspect’ classes receive. Without this, every case at every level of the judicial system can allow for a great deal of discrimination when rulings are applied to women. We at FIST support EME’s case and have signed on as a signatory to the amicus brief. For more information about the case and the amicus brief, see EME’s post.

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SKRMETTI DECISION

By Ann Menasche

This piece is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Feminists in Struggle as an organization.

Radical feminists, parents and many others holding a range of political views, welcomed the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti issued on June 11th upholding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law banning the practice of so-called “gender affirming care” for minors under 18.  Many were anxious to put a stop to this medical experiment on a vulnerable group of children and teens, mostly girls, who are gender non-conforming, autistic, and/or survivors of trauma, a majority of whom, if provided appropriate support, would be likely to grow up lesbian or gay with their bodies and fertility intact.

The decision moved the struggle to the states against this sexist and homophobic practice (based on the idea that some people are born “wrong” and need “fixing” so their bodies “align” with sex stereotypes).  Already, 26 states have passed restrictions or bans on use by minors of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and cosmetic surgeries for “sex change” and more such laws are now likely.  This is good news especially for these “trans kids” whose bodies are being experimented on and permanently harmed.

But like all victories issued under this right-wing court, some of the reasoning in the decision may be a bit of a two-edged sword that could be used against women’s rights in the future.

The majority decision by Justice Roberts held that Tennessee’s law was not subject to heightened (“intermediate”) scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it did not classify based on sex.  Neither did the law classify based transgender status but merely regulates a medical procedure, removing one set of diagnosis – gender dysphoria or incongruence – from a range of treatable conditions.  Such classifications based on age or medical use are subject only to rational basis review.  This is easily passed here.  The Court points to medical and scientific uncertainty and the reviews and restrictions on use of these treatments on minors coming out of the UK, Sweden, Norway, and other countries.  Justice Roberts also distinguishes Bostock; and further points out that Tennessee law has nothing to do with sex stereotyping or restrictions on clothing, behavior etc. All good news.

However, the Court majority relies on and reinforces some very bad law – that discrimination based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions, including bans on abortion do not constitute sex discrimination because not all women are pregnant, even though only women can get pregnant or seek abortions.  “Thus, although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence – just as only biological women can be become pregnant – there is a ‘lack of identity’ between transgender status and the excluded medical diagnosis.”  Therefore, even were the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution and sex treated as a suspect class subject to strict scrutiny, abortion bans or other discriminatory treatment based on pregnancy could not be successfully challenged as sex discrimination with the current Supreme Court majority.

The concurring opinions are noteworthy.  Justice Thomas’ description of the horror of what “gender affirming care” actually consists of in practice is quite good; as is Justice Barrett’s review of why the transgender population does not share “the obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics of a discrete group” to be a suspect class, like sex or race.  Rather, the transgender population is “large, diverse, and amorphous.” and lacks a history of de jure discrimination that women and people of color have faced. The dissent points to bans on cross-dressing and sodomy laws as proof of de jure discrimination against transgender persons; however, in my view, those laws target gays and cross-dressers, and do not specifically target individuals with transgender identities or who medicalize to hide or deny their sex.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion argues that discrimination based on transgender status is a sex-based classification, and that the Tennessee law is discriminatory.  She believes that hormones and surgeries are “a matter of life or death”; she also implies that it is possible to switch puberties.  Justice Kagan, while also calling for heightened scrutiny, to her credit, takes no view on how the Tennessee law would fare under such scrutiny.

Finally, not one Justice thinks sex discrimination claims under Equal Protection should be subjected to strict scrutiny.  Of course, there is no mention of the ERA.  Though sex is deemed immutable, because of the existence of biological sex differences that society “celebrates”, the Court unanimously rejects strict scrutiny for “sex” that is accorded race discrimination.  The entire Court is therefore committed to maintaining women’s second-class status.

EXCITING FORUM MAY 10th ON PERSPECTIVES & STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Tickets on sale now for forum on the ERA with well-known feminist leaders and activists

PERSPECTIVES & STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ERA

Feminists in Struggle is honored to have three amazing guest speakers who have been in the forefront of the fight to register the already ratified Equal Rights Amendment into the Constitution. This is a strategic discussion not to be missed!

This will be a remote event on Zoom. A link will be sent to everyone who registers. REGISTER

WENDY MURPHY is an adjunct professor of Sexual Violence and Law Reform at New England Law | Boston where she also co-directs the Women’s and Children’s Advocacy Project (WCAP) under the Center for Law and Social Responsibility. WCAP runs the Judicial Language Project, and the Hate Crimes Against Women project, WCAP also files amicus briefs and engages in public interest litigation to advance the rights of women and children. On January 7, 2020, WCAP filed a first-in-the-nation federal lawsuit to validate the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Massachusetts federal court.

Wendy was a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School from 2002-03 and served as the Mary Joe Frug Assistant Professor of Law at New England Law | Boston from 2001-2002. She is a former child abuse and sex crimes prosecutor and founded the first organization in the nation to provide pro bono legal services to victims of violence involved in the criminal justice system. Wendy is an impact litigator who practices in state and federal courts and specializes in advancing the constitutional and civil rights of women and children.

Wendy has authored numerous scholarly articles including a landmark piece explaining the legal relationship between sexual assault on campus and Title IX. Wendy filed many impact litigation cases involving Title IX and campus sexual assault resulting in groundbreaking victories and leading to widespread awareness and reforms, including the well-known April 2011, Dear Colleague Letter. Her most recent law review article is a feminist critical reexamination of the history of women’s struggle for equality and is entitled, “Unequal Protection of the Laws for Women is Constitutional Terrorism, So How Come Nobody Knows about It?

She has also appeared on television as a legal analyst for many years and has worked for NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News and has provided legal analysis for print and television media. She is the author of two books, “And Justice For Some,” published by Penguin/Sentinel in 2007 and “Oh No He Didn’t, Brilliant Women and the Men Who Took Credit for Their Work,” published by Cynren Press in 2024..

KAMALA LOPEZ, is a founder and President of Equal Means Equal, filmaker, activist & President of Heroica Films,.Kamala Lopez, launched the movement and documentary film Equal Means Equal, to educate Americans about the importance of equal rights under federal law for women and complete the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

JEAN SWEENEY graduated from the College of the Holy Cross as part of the third class of women and is a New York attorney who spent 15 years on Wall Street as counsel to the money managers. In 2001 she joined the litigation practice of Maloof and Browne LLC as a managing attorney. For the last 12 years she has had the privilege of following her passion of getting women to be honored and respected as equal citizens. She was one of the activists working to get the last 3 States to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment and has worked for the last 5 years on getting our Constitution published with the ERA by leading the National ERA Publication Task Force. She is also an award- winning photographer, Kripalu-trained yoga teacher, writer, speaker, and founder of Rethinking Eve LLC, a business focused on uplifting women.

This is a woman-only event and is interactive, with plenty of time for questions and discussion from participants.

 

The ERA: the Journey to become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Picture: Lady Justice also known as Themis and Justitia from Greek and Roman mythology

Flag: Represents the ERA with the suffragist colors and the stars for the 38 ratified states

Our Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the document that defines how the federal government is structured and how it operates. Additionally, the Constitution includes important civil rights that are guaranteed to all citizens. The Constitution became effective on March 4, 1789. It has been amended 28 times, beginning on December 15,1791 with the first 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights.

For an amendment to be added to the constitution it must meet two requirements outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

1. An amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.
2. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures (38), or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

The United States National Archivist then follows the 1 USC 106b Statute passed by Congress which defines its ministerial duties that includes recording the date of ratification for each State. Once ratified by three-fourths of the States, the National Archivist enters the date into the National Register that serves as an announcement to the States and others that the Amendment has been added. An updated Constitution is then published by the National Archivist. The Archivist primary role is to direct the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) – the nation’s record keeper.

On January 27, 2020, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) making it the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. With this amendment women gained the human right of equal protection of the law.

The Equal Rights Amendment

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The ERA gives Congress the power to legislate and requires the courts to enforce laws that lift women to equal citizenship with men. This is important in order to ensure that women are no longer subject to discriminatory laws, policies, or statutes. The ERA ensures United States laws embraces equality for everyone, thereby providing equal rights and protections to all human beings.

When the government chooses to discriminate against women on the basis of sex, the ERA demands that the analysis applied by the courts be the highest standard of judicial review, called “strict scrutiny”, which is currently applied to discrimination based on immutable characteristics like race and national origin. Using a strict scrutiny analysis, the government must show that sex discrimination is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and the government is using the least restrictive means available. Without strict scrutiny, far more discrimination against women is legally allowed. With the ERA in the federal Constitution cases involving sexual harassment, unequal pay, and/or other issues discrimination based on sex can be challenged with a higher probability of success.

Herstory about the ERA

It’s been a long road for women’s equality in the world’s oldest continuous democracy. When America began, single women were legally considered chattel, owned by their fathers, brothers, and sons, and married women were considered legally merged with their husbands. This remained the case for most of the United States’ history.

After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were added to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment ended slavery unless convicted of a crime, the 14th Amendment established equal protection of the law for all citizens, and the 15th Amendment, created the right to vote for former enslaved males. The 14th amendment explicitly named “males” as having voting rights, and the 15th amendment excluded voter discrimination based on sex, though suffragists had fought hard for its inclusion.

After Reconstruction, women developed a two-prong strategy to remedy their exclusion from the Constitution, get the vote, and get equal protection of the law. Though women got the vote in 1920, when the 19th Amendment was added, women of color faced barriers, especially in the Jim Crow South, and were not actually able to exercise their right to vote until 1965 with the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

The first iteration of the Equal Rights Amendment, written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, was proposed to Congress in 1923, three years after the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. The ERA was named the Lucretia Mott Amendment after another prominent suffragist. After almost 50 years, an updated ERA was passed by the House on October 12, 1971 and Senate on March 22, 1972. State ratification began in 1972 through 2020. It took almost a century to meet the Constitutional requirements for an Amendment ensuring equal rights based on sex to be added to the Constitution.

When passed by Congress, a 7-year time limit was added to the preamble of the Amendment, which Congress extended for 3 more years. When that time limit expired, 35 of the required 38 states had ratified. At first women were disheartened, however, following the ratification of the 27th Amendment after over 202 years, women rallied. In fact, the 27th Amendment about Congressional pay raises was proposed with the original 10 amendments but was not ratified by the states until 1992. The National Archivist, Don Wilson, certified and published the Amendment without any judgments or involvement of others. He stated, “If I didn’t publish the 27th (Amendment) then I would be playing a role not delegated to me. The biggest factor for me was the fact that I shouldn’t interfere and needed to follow the statutory process.” Wilson was scolded by a member of Congress for certifying the amendment without congressional approval. According to Article V in the Constitution, Congress’ role is only the first step of the process. Historically, Congress passes a ceremonial affirming resolution after ratification of an Amendment.

Proponents of the ERA reached out to the then current National Archivist, David Ferriero, to confirm that he would certify and publish the 28th Amendment if the additional 3 states needed were ratified. This was confirmed in writing by the Archivist. Advocates, led by Equal Means Equal, then adopted a 3-state strategy arguing the time limit put in the preamble of the Amendment not in the text that the States ratified, like the 18th and 21st Amendments, is not constitutional and began again to press for ratification in the remaining states. Nevada ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in March 2017. Illinois ratified in May 2018. Then on January 27, 2020, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the ERA, making it the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There are only two requirements to amend the United States Constitution in Article V – that Congress pass the proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote, and that three-fourths of the states ratify the amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment met these requirements to become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has also been affirmed by the American Bar Association and the American Constitution Society. There is nothing in Article V about time limits or rescissions as some states purport.

The Equal Rights Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment which has met the requirements in Article V, but to date has not yet been published.

President Trump through his Attorney General, William Barr, inserted himself in the constitutional amendment process by stopping the Archivist, David Ferriero, from completing the certification of Virginia’s ratification. He did this by issuing an Office of Legal Council (OLC) memo, which is nonbinding. In a press release, Archivist Ferriero summarized the conclusion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) “Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States … [and] the ERA’s adoption could not be certified.” The memorandum also stated that once Congress proposes an amendment to the states, it has no further role in the ratification process and therefore lacks authority to modify the original deadline.

It is the role of the Courts to determine the ERA’s validity if someone chooses to challenge the amendment. Historically, those who oppose any Amendment had to argue their case with the burden on them.

President Joe Biden’s Administration, once in office, called on Congress to act swiftly which prompted two Congressional resolutions. One to remove the ERA time limit and the other to affirm that the ERA was the 28th Amendment. During the next four years, Congress was unable to pass either resolution.

In 2021, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland fought against the ERA in two federal lawsuits. On January 26, 2022, the Department of Justice issued an OLC opinion that did not withdraw the 2020 memorandum’s conclusion concerning the ERA time limit but said there was no obstacle to Congress’s ability to act with respect to the ERA’s ratification or to judicial consideration of questions regarding the constitutional status of the amendment.

Some ERA Advocates focused only on passage of the resolutions while other advocates used a pressure campaign pushing President Biden to instruct the Archivist to publish the ERA before he left office. The pressure included letters, phone calls, texts, emails, social media posts, petitions, press conferences, and outreach to anyone that could influence the President including his sister. Letters were sent to the President from 46 Senators, 122 House members, 143 diverse organizations (led by Shattering Glass and the League of Women Voters), 100s of women leaders of the Labor Movement, 60 faith-based organizations (led by the National Council of Jewish Women), National Association of Women Lawyers and Women Lawyers on Guard, Women’s Bar Association of DC, along with the New Hampshire and Ohio State Legislators. The following organizations made public statements: the Reproductive Health Coalition (led by American Medical Women’s Association and Doctors for America), North Carolina Association of Women Lawyers, New York City Bar Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other leading fertility and OB/GYN associations. On August 6, 2024 a Resolution and Report from the American Bar Association urged immediate publication/implementation warning that without the ERA, the 14th Amendment sex-based equal protection is “in grave peril.”

In addition, on December 13, 2024, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women sent President Biden a letter and urged him to direct the Federal Archivist to publish the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution immediately. She stated, “Your role is to fulfill your Article II, Section 3 duty under the “Take Care” Clause, to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. This duty is mandatory. By directing the Archivist to certify the last state that ratified in 2020 and publish the ERA, you will be allowing the Constitutional process to continue and be able to inform the UN that the United States has finally met its obligation.” She reminded him that the United States of America is required to adopt a constitutional sex equality amendment that “guarantee protections against sex- and gender-based discrimination in its Constitution, including through initiatives such as the Equal Rights Amendment. She requested that he answer three critical questions. It is unknown if he ever responded.

Equal Means Equal (EME) orchestrated mass protests in DC and across the country to pressure President Biden to publish the ERA. On January 10th at the National Archives in Washington DC, EME in partnership with Vote Equality US conducted a final direct action that resulted in over thirty people being detained and 6 arrested. Dressed in construction worker safety gear activists replaced the building’s center banner with one calling out President Biden directly: “Publish the ERA, Hero or Zero,” This banner, along with two others, were confiscated by police. Additional activists arrived dressed as women from the science-fiction Dune holding a banner announcing SISTERHOOD ABOVE ALL. The National Archivist then issued a statement on the National Archives website stating an act of Congress or a court order is now required before publication. Never in the history of constitutional amendments has an Archivist made judgements or dictated requirements outside their ministerial role in the process as defined in the 1 USC 106b Statute. Subsequently, the New York Bar Association issued a rebuke of this statement by the National Archivist’s inappropriate presumption of this authority.

Due to the pressure campaign and direct action, on January 17, 2025, President Biden issued this statement affirming that the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) is the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.” Those who publicly supported the Presidents’ affirming statement included Laurence H. Tribe (a Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University), Kathleen M. Sullivan (former Dean of Stanford Law School and professor of law at Harvard and Stanford), and Russ Feingold (President of the American Constitution Society).
It is important to note that Presidents have no authority to declare the validity of amendments. That is up to the courts.

President Trump’s Administration, once back in office, dismissed the National Archivist, Colleen Shogan, on February 7, 2025. Then, several senior staffers quit or retired. Other staffers at the agency accepted government-offered deferred resignations or were fired because of their probationary status. Since February 16, 2025, Marco Rubio, newly appointed Secretary of State, became the acting National Archivist. Prior to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) becoming a nonpartisan independent agency, the duty was vested in the General Services Administration, and, before the establishment of that agency in 1949, it formed part of the duties of the United States Secretary of State. The position of National Archivist was created in 1934 by Congress.

There are a number of process irregularities in the way this particular amendment has been handled:

1. Although the constitutional process only has two requirements to be added to the Constitution, Congress added a time limit which essentially modifies the constitutional process which does not require one to be set.
2. An Attorney General inserted himself in the ratification process that made a judgement about the time limit when he has no role in the process.
3. An Archivist whose role is ministerial presumed to expand their authority by declaring that additional requirements must be met before publication. Ministerial duties have also been inconsistently executed.
4. And finally, a President who could have used his Article II, Section 3 duty under the “Take Care” Clause to order publication of the ERA, thereby ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, decided instead to issue an affirming statement.

These irregularities are all arguably unconstitutional as changes to the constitutional process require changes to the Constitution itself. As this amendment is about sex discrimination which uniquely affects women, the pattern of obstruction throughout the constitutional process reveals what we believe to be an intentional effort to keep women in second-class citizenship and an attempt to obfuscate this intent. The failure of the Biden Administration to see that the Equal Rights Amendment was published is particularly galling given his campaign promises of being pro-ERA and pro-women’s rights, and the fact that he and Harris were aware that it could have protected Roe from being overturned.

Regardless of whether the National Archivist, Coleen Shogun, performed the appropriate ministerial duties or not, the Equal Rights Amendment met the two requirements to be added to the Constitution and is the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and enforceable. According to the DC District Court of Appeals, it dismissed Illinois v. Ferriero in 2021 on grounds that the litigating states did not have standing to claim harm from the Archivist’s failure to publish because the Archivist’s actions have no effect on the ERA’s legal status.

Women were first challenged to get the right to vote without having that Constitutional right, and again with the Equal Rights Amendment that would provide a means to challenge sex discrimination, women have had to deal with barriers being purposely put in place to discourage or stop its passage, ratification, and publication. In both the 19th and the 28th Amendments, women have persevered against all odds through five generations and will continue to be vigilant about their rights. While we understand that the ERA remains formally unpublished by the National Archives, and that only the courts can validate any amendment, we nevertheless feel it is important that it be acknowledged as having met the Constitutional requirements to be added to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, we are posting a link to the Unabridged U.S. Constitution that includes the 28th amendment. This version is in commemoration of the ratification of The Equal Rights Amendment in 2020, and is being provided by an informal group of women’s rights advocates carrying on the work of their foremothers that started over a century ago.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

To stay current on The Equal Rights Amendment, you can subscribe to updates at: www.EqualMeansEqual.org,

ON DARKNESS, BETRAYAL, AND THE POWER OF SISTERHOOD

By Ann Menasche

This piece contains the opinions of the author and does not necessarily represent the collective views of Feminists in Struggle.

Many spiritual and religious traditions celebrate the dark, cold time of the year – winter solstice – by lighting candles, stoking a fire, and gathering close with loved ones.  We do so to help us survive this dark time and to remind us that after darkness comes the light.

The sadness for me this year is palpable.  We lost our beloved dog, Jaz, on December 9th.  And I can’t forget the state of the world that haunts me and disturbs my sleep: the relentless slaughter of the women and children in Gaza; the women in Afghanistan prisoners in their homes, denied work or study.  And closer to home, my homeless neighbors including a growing number of women – virtually all survivors of male violence -subsist crammed into government-sanctioned rat-infested camps, tents three feet apart, with no way to stay warm or dry.

And the state of our rights as women in the U.S. is abysmal.  Over 100 years after Alice Paul introduced the Equal Rights Amendment into the Constitution, we are still considered second class citizens, as first Trump, then Biden refused to register the duly ratified Amendment into the Constitution. This weakens our ability to fight to regain reproductive rights, to end violence against women, and to achieve equal pay and opportunity in the workplace for women. Meanwhile, trans activists are attempting to erase our sex class from existence in law and public policy so it will be impossible to name, measure, or remedy ongoing sexism.

Is it any wonder that so many young girls are attempting to “identify” out of their womanhood?

Then there is the bitterness of betrayal. Over the last several months, FIST joined with Equal Means Equal and became part of a broad coalition of organizations demanding that the Biden administration instruct the archivist to publish the ERA.  We recently learned that behind our backs, leaders of mainstream feminist organizations such as NOW and the Feminist Majority, supposed feminists and ERA supporters, were urging Biden not to publish the ERA.

How do we explain this treachery?  Is it their loyalty to the corporate dominated Democratic Party that while using women’s rights as a campaign slogan to win votes and donations, never had women’s best interests at heart?  Or do they really believe that the best way to fight for our rights is to be “ladylike” and polite, to not rock the boat?

I’m with Frederick Douglass who said in 1857, “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are people who want crops without ploughing the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning, the want the ocean without the roar of its many waters…Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and it never will.”

I learned a lesson in courage and tenacity watching my sick dog with her back legs failing her, forcing herself up again and again and walking through the house, and up and down stairs.  No matter how many times she fell, she persisted, until she could no longer move at all.

Building movements takes that level of persistence, along with a recognition that when women unite, collectively we have the power to bring in the light, to change everything.  We have that power regardless of who is in the White House.

Like the women in Iran who against incredible odds, led (and will continue to lead) their people in a movement against theocracy proclaiming, “Women, Life, Freedom.”

Like our foremothers, the suffragists.  Women like Alice Paul and the Women’s Party that declared their independence from the patriarchy and its two political parties and were relentless in carrying out their struggle.

It took 100 years to win the vote, but we were not defeated.