The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed addition to the U.S. Constitution, just 52 words across three sections, that would prohibit the federal government and the states from denying or abridging equality of rights on account of sex. Congress sent it to the states in 1972. Thirty-eight states have now ratified it, meeting the numerical threshold in Article V, but it has not been certified as part of the Constitution because of a dispute over whether the original ratification deadline still controls. That dispute is unresolved in 2026.
The Full Text
Congress passed House Joint Resolution 208 on March 22, 1972. The amendment itself reads:
- 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.
Section 1 is the operative rule: government at every level is barred from treating people differently because of sex. Section 2 gives Congress authority to pass enforcement legislation. Section 3 builds in a two-year gap between ratification and effective date so existing laws can be brought into compliance.1govinfo. House Joint Resolution 208 – Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relative to Equal Rights for Men and Women
The language is deliberately broad. It does not define “sex” and does not carve out exceptions. Whether “on account of sex” would reach only biological sex, or also gender identity and sexual orientation, is a matter of ongoing legal debate that courts would work out case by case.
The Seven-Year Deadline
The 1972 resolution did not consist only of the three-section amendment. Its proposing clause stated that the amendment would be “valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress.”1govinfo. House Joint Resolution 208 – Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relative to Equal Rights for Men and Women That clock started March 22, 1972 and set an expiration of March 22, 1979.
Where the deadline sits matters. It appears in the introductory resolution rather than inside Sections 1, 2, or 3. Some legal scholars argue that a deadline outside the operative text is not binding in the same way and can be removed or extended by ordinary congressional vote. Others read it as a condition of the original proposal that cannot be altered after the fact. The Constitution itself is silent on ratification deadlines.
With only 35 of the required 38 states on board in 1978, Congress passed a joint resolution extending the deadline to June 30, 1982. No additional states ratified during that extension.2Congress.gov. The Equal Rights Amendment: Background and Recent Legal Developments
The Ratification Count
Ratification moved fast at first. Hawaii ratified the same day Congress passed the resolution, 30 states approved the amendment within a year, and the count reached 35 by 1977. Then the process stalled for nearly four decades.
Five states, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota, voted to rescind their earlier ratifications. Whether a state can take back a ratification is itself an unresolved constitutional question. When the 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified, Congress counted states that had attempted to rescind, treating rescissions as invalid. A federal district court in Idaho ruled in 1980 that the state’s ERA rescission was valid. No definitive resolution exists.
The ratification effort revived decades later. Nevada ratified in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia became the 38th state to ratify on January 27, 2020.3Congress.gov. Equal Rights Amendment Text Supporters argue those 38 ratifications satisfy Article V regardless of the expired deadline. Opponents say the late ratifications have no legal effect.
Current Status in 2026
The numerical threshold has been met, but the amendment has not been certified or published as part of the Constitution. The Archivist of the United States, whose office publishes certified amendments, has declined to do so.
The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in January 2020 concluding that “Congress had constitutional authority to impose that deadline and that, because 38 states had not ratified the proposed amendment before that deadline’s expiration, the ERA is not a part of the United States Constitution and the Archivist of the United States may not certify it as such.” A follow-up 2022 opinion added that Congress cannot retroactively extend or remove the deadline.4U.S. Department of Justice. Effect of 2020 OLC Opinion on Possible Congressional Action Relating to the Equal Rights Amendment
Relying on those opinions, the Archivist issued a statement on December 17, 2024 that the ERA “cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.”5National Archives. Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process One month later, on January 17, 2025, President Biden publicly stated his belief that the ERA had cleared all necessary hurdles, saying “the 28th Amendment is the law of the land.” He did not direct the Archivist to certify it, and the prevailing legal view is that the president lacks authority to compel certification.
Supporters have turned to the courts. A Ninth Circuit panel rejected ERA ratification claims in Valame v. Trump in November 2025. In Massachusetts, Equal Means Equal v. Trump challenged the Military Selective Service Act on the theory that the ERA is already ratified; that case was dismissed on April 21, 2026 for lack of standing.6CourtListener. Equal Means Equal v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10806 No court has ruled that the ERA is a valid part of the Constitution.
What the ERA Would Actually Change
The Fourteenth Amendment already bars states from denying “the equal protection of the laws,” and courts have applied it to sex discrimination since the 1970s. The ERA would still do real work, mostly by changing the level of scrutiny courts apply.
Race-based government classifications trigger “strict scrutiny,” which requires the government to prove a compelling reason for the distinction. Very few laws survive it. Sex-based classifications currently trigger “intermediate scrutiny,” a weaker standard that only requires a substantial relationship between the law and an important government interest.7Legal Information Institute. Intermediate Scrutiny Some sex-based laws survive intermediate scrutiny that would fail strict scrutiny.
The ERA would almost certainly push sex discrimination into strict scrutiny territory. It would also close a structural gap: Fourteenth Amendment protection for sex discrimination exists only through decades of case law and could be narrowed by future courts. Text in the Constitution is harder to weaken. Federal statutes like Title IX can be amended or repealed by a simple congressional majority; a constitutional amendment can only be undone by another constitutional amendment.
State Equal Rights Provisions
While the federal ERA sits unresolved, roughly 25 states have their own equal rights language in their constitutions, with several others including more limited gender equality provisions. These operate independently of federal law and let residents challenge sex discrimination in state courts regardless of what happens federally. Pennsylvania’s constitution tracks the federal ERA closely, barring denial of equality of rights “because of the sex of the individual.”8Pennsylvania General Assembly. Constitution of Pennsylvania California takes a narrower approach, focused on business, profession, and employment discrimination.9Justia. California Constitution Article I Section 8 – Declaration of Rights In states with strong provisions, courts have used them to strike down discriminatory insurance pricing, unequal pension benefits, and sex-based differences in family law.