If President Biden Endorses the Equal Rights Amendment, What Happens Next?
President Biden and the Equal Rights Amendment: A Compelling but Challenging Path
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining gender equality, has found itself at the centre of a complex legal and political battle. The amendment, if ratified, could have profound effects on U.S. law and society, potentially reshaping how courts address sex discrimination.
Legal Challenges
The ERA's ratification process is fraught with legal questions. The amendment's ratification deadline, originally set by Congress in 1979, has been a point of contention. While supporters argue that the ERA has met Article 5's requirements for amendment ratification (three-fourths of states), opponents contend that the deadline issue invalidates the ratification process.
Another issue concerns the President's authority to certify and publish the ERA as an official amendment. Despite President Biden's January 2025 statement affirming the ERA as the 28th Amendment, the White House swiftly archived this statement, reflecting unresolved legal doubts and political hesitation.
Legal battles are ongoing, and courts may need to decide if the ERA's ratification can be formally recognized, especially given contrasting interpretations of the amendment process and statutory deadlines.
Political Challenges
The ERA has faced political resistance as well. A recent Senate vote in July 2025 on a resolution to ratify the ERA failed to secure enough support, revealing political resistance. Some Senators and lawmakers oppose the ERA due to concerns about its broad social implications or constitutional propriety.
The ERA controversy is part of wider debates on gender equality, transgender rights, and social policy in the U.S. The political climate includes pushback from conservative groups and former Trump administration policies against aspects of gender identity and transition treatments, intensifying ideological divisions around gender equality legislation.
Advocacy Pressure
Despite political hurdles, ERA supporters emphasize the importance of constitutional gender equality to secure fundamental protections and apply "strict scrutiny" to sex discrimination cases, which would elevate sex to a "suspect classification" like race, significantly impacting legal standards across the country.
A coalition of over 120 House Democrats is advocating for President Biden to instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA. Over 100 House Democrats and 46 Senate Democrats have urged President Biden to direct the National Archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment.
Looking Ahead
As time progresses toward January 2025, it remains crucial to monitor whether President Biden will seize this opportunity or allow it to slip away amidst ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding this historic amendment. The combination of procedural requirements and potential resistance from the National Archivist creates a complex landscape where swift action appears unlikely.
If ratified, the ERA could mark a historic victory for advocates of gender equality. However, critics caution that the ERA may challenge laws currently benefiting women. The debate surrounding the ERA underscores the ongoing struggle for gender equality in the United States, a struggle that continues to evolve in the face of legal and political challenges.
- The potential implementation of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) could have implications for various sectors, including health-and-wellness and women's health, as strict scrutiny on sex discrimination cases may lead to changes in legislation regarding these areas.
- The ERA's ratification could influence policy-and-legislation decisions and spark debates on general-news platforms, as the amendment's enactment could reshape how courts address sex discrimination and have social repercussions.
- The politics surrounding the ERA are intense, with supporters advocating for President Biden to certify and publish the amendment to secure fundamental protections, while opponents raise concerns about its potential impact on existing laws and societal norms.
