NAWL Joins Letter to President Biden to Certify the ERA Now

December 4, 2024

December 4, 2024



President Joseph R. Biden

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500


Re: Certify the ERA Now!


Dear President Biden:


We are writing on behalf of Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc. and the National Association of Women Lawyers, two nationwide organizations that together represent the voice of hundreds of thousands of lawyers.


Women’s rights are under attack in ways we have not seen in generations. Pregnancy in states with abortion bans has become a death sentence for some women and, with the criminalization of women’s health care, more will die. Medical students and residents in states with abortion bans are not getting the training they need in order to give women the accepted standard of care, and “maternal health care deserts” are now a reality. Some in the GOP seek to erase more than 100 years of history. Some propose repealing the 19th Amendment, which enshrined women’s right to vote in the Constitution.


In this environment, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is more important than ever.


The operative language in the ERA simply states:


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


The ERA has now been ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the States required by the Constitution. We call upon you to complete the Constitutional process and instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA now.


Generations of women (and men who support them) have fought for laws to allow women to have a job outside the home, own a home, obtain a loan or credit card, and get the health care they need. However, these laws at best are a patchwork which can be narrowed or even repealed. The President or the Executive Branch at the federal level and other governments (state, local) can refuse to enforce them. Congress can tell DC and the Territories what their laws on these issues should be. Courts can narrow them — or as with Dobbs, erase decades of freedom.


First proposed by Alice Paul in December 1923, the ERA was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 through 1970, but was bottled up in Committee for decades, with Committee Chairs refusing to bring it up for a vote. In 1970, Congresswoman Martha Griffiths (D., Mich.; 84th-93d Congresses; Chair, Ways & Means) filed a discharge petition which upon passage brought the ERA to the floor of the House of Representatives where it passed. Although the Senate failed to approve it that year, the next year bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress passed the Amendment overwhelmingly, far exceeding the 2/3 majority required in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.


Six states ratified the Amendment within six days of Congressional passage on March 22, 1972. By the end of 1973, 30 States had ratified it. By the end of 1977, 35 States had ratified the ERA, but then progress stalled. Decades later, with the momentum created by the Women’s Marches and the #MeToo movement, Nevada and Illinois ratified; and on January 27, 2020, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the ERA, reaching the 3/4 of the States required by the Constitution. As set forth in the Constitution, the ERA became part of the Constitution when Virginia ratified it in 2020. The Executive Branch has no role in the amendment process, as shown by a plain reading of Article V. The only remaining requirement necessary now to add the ERA to the Constitution – where it belongs – is publication and certification by the Archivist of the United States, as has been done with the other 27 Amendments to the Constitution.


We call on you in your remaining days in office to instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA now. There is no reason that the Archivist has failed to take this ministerial step. Legislators in Congress have introduced resolutions recognizing that the ERA has been validly ratified, and it should be published and certified by the Archivist. In August 2024, the American Bar Association, the world’s largest voluntary association of lawyers, adopted a policy supporting certification and formal addition of the ERA to the Constitution.


Contrary to its opponents’ arguments, States cannot rescind their ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. The ratification process is silent on any right to rescind, and there is no such implied right in the text or case law. Even an “originalist” reading of the Constitution and its related history confirms this point. No less a commentator on the subject than James Madison himself, in a letter dated July 20, 1788 to Alexander Hamilton, declared that ratification is “in toto and forever.”1 Indeed, some States attempted to rescind their ratifications of the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, but neither Congress nor the Executive Branch recognized those attempts. Thus, assertions by States that they want to rescind their earlier ratifications of the ERA should not be allowed to hold up the addition of the ERA to the Constitution. As the text of the Constitution and legal scholars confirm, purported rescissions of votes ratifying the ERA are null and void.


In addition, the Constitution includes no provision requiring that ratifications be “contemporaneous” with each other, and any such provision purporting to impose such a time frame is superfluous. This is shown by the plain language of Article V which contains no such timing requirement. None is found in the text of the Amendment itself and so the 38 States that voted to ratify the ERA did not vote on any such timing requirement. Another Constitutional Amendment, which included no timing requirement, received its final ratification in 1992, more than 200 years after Congress first sent it to the States for ratification — in 1789. That Amendment, now the 27th Amendment, is nicknamed the “Madison Amendment,” after Founding Father James Madison who first proposed it. The Amendment, which precludes a sitting Congress from voting on its own compensation, was ratified by six States between 1789 and 1791, but then sat dormant for almost 200 years before States in the 1980s began once again to ratify it. The Archivist did not hesitate to publish and certify the Madison Amendment once it received ratification from the 38th State, thus confirming its rightful addition to the Constitution in 1992. The 48-year time period here for the ERA pales in comparison to the 203-year period between the first and last ratifications for the 27th Amendment.


Under the Constitution and relevant statute (1 U.S.C. § 106b), the Archivist should now publish and certify the ERA now. We ask that you call on the Archivist to complete that administrative task immediately, confirming the addition of the ERA to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment.




Respectfully, 


Karen Richardson

Executive Director

National Association of Women Lawyers

National Association of Women Lawyers logo

Corrine P. Parver

President

Cory M. Amron

Vice President

Women Lawyers on Guard Action Network

Women Lawyers on Guard Action Network logo

1 | https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-alexander-hamilton-6

June 30, 2025
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , ruling 6–3 that individual Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials to enforce the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. The Court’s decision could pave the way for states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even when doing so limits access to essential reproductive and preventive health care -- and even when the sole basis for doing so is for ideological reasons. This ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive justice and health equity. By narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge state actions that restrict access to care, the Court has further eroded the legal tools available to protect the rights of patients who rely on Medicaid to access fundamental healthcare, including preventative and general care and access to contraception. Marginalized communities will likely be disparately affected. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a powerful dissent, emphasized the real-world consequences of the majority’s decision: “[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’” NAWL is proud to have joined with the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief which underscored the importance of preserving legal avenues for patients to challenge discriminatory and harmful state policies. NAWL stands in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights advocates, and the millions of individuals whose access to care is now at greater risk. We urge our members and allies to continue advocating for a legal system that upholds the rights, health, and dignity of all people—regardless of income, identity, or geography. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting . Hear about this Supreme Court term’s major decisions affecting NAWL’s mission from Arabella Babb Mansfield Award Recipients and co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School; Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law; and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Additionally, after a workshop screening of the film Zurawski v Texas , Cici Coquillette from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Cassie Ehrenberg from The Lawyering Project and Abortion Defense Network will specifically discuss the Medina decision.
Trans flag waving against a blue sky.
June 24, 2025
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti , which upholds a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender-affirming medical care —such as puberty blockers and hormones— for transgender minors. In the 6–3 decision, the Court held that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, despite its discriminatory targeting of transgender youth by explicitly permitting hormone treatments and gender-affirming care for youth who identify as cisgender, while denying the same care for youth who identify as trans. This ruling has the potential to reshape access to health care and marks a profound erosion of the Equal Protection clause as a tool for challenging laws that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a searing dissent, laid bare the consequences of the Court’s refusal to confront the reality of this legislation: “[T]he majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.” As an organization committed to advancing gender equity under the law, NAWL stands with transgender individuals, families, advocates, and scholars who continue this long fight. The Court’s application of rational basis review to state laws targeting a specific “medical use” may also have far-reaching negative consequences on gender health equity more broadly, including access to reproductive care. NAWL calls on its members and allies to speak out, support impacted communities, and work toward a legal system rooted in dignity, equity, and justice for all. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting during the session, “ U.S. v. Skrmetti : The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare,” featuring National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and Executive Director of the Williams Institute Christy Mallory .
April 29, 2025
Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President
April 2, 2025
Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic
More Posts