Leftist court slaps down Joe Biden’s wild claim that Equal Rights Amendment is ‘law of the land’

Now even a leftist court has sounded off on the wild claim by Democrats, other progressives, and Joe Biden that the Equal Rights Amendment now is “law of the land.”

The ERA was proposed back in the 1970s, some five decades ago. It was approved by Congress and states were given seven years to endorse it. The deadline even, under a questionable scheme, was “extended” by three years.

It failed.

Then, not just years, but decades after the deadline has passed, Democrats in several states schemed to vote on the idea, with Virginia’s “approval” coming just recently.

So claimed the Democrats that the damaging ERA, which could be applied to do things like erase abortion restrictions nationwide and require the draft for women, was the law.

Joe Biden quickly jumped out onto that limb.

The Virginia House of Delegates just voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of United States of America.
“Equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” pic.twitter.com/irIF1NkayJ

— Sen. Danica Roem (@pwcdanica) January 15, 2020

Good news is President Biden just made the Equal Right Amendment the 28th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law.

Thank you, President Biden pic.twitter.com/AlJ9vp6xwc

— TJ Radway (@tjradway7) January 17, 2025

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now has ruled such claims “meritless.”

The panel didn’t even bother to explain its reasoning, stating simply, “We reject as meritless Valame’s contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eight Amendment to the Constitution.”

It was Vikram Valame who raised the demand that the court create the 28th Amendment judicially in a fight over the legality of the Military Selective Service Act.

Working on a piece discussing the latest “fail” for the people who claim that there is a 28th Amendment to the constitution. Here is the recent Ninth Circuit (!) opinion brushing that claim aside. https://t.co/6UihWHpAS5

1/2

— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) July 21, 2025

A commentary a Twitchy took aim at the wild claim that the ERA was “law.”

“There is a cadre of leftists who insist that a proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)—that would make governmental discrimination based on sex illegal—has somehow become part of the Constitution as the alleged Twenty-Eighth Amendment.”

It was, in fact, dead for decades after states refused to endorse it before two deadlines passed.

“Then in the last few years a movement came about to give it a late ratification, with Virginia providing it the alleged thirty-eighth ratification. We say ‘alleged thirty-eighth ratification’ because besides the timing issue, many states that ratified it have purported to rescind that ratification. You cannot claim that thirty-eight states have ratified it without claiming that once a state provides its consent, it cannot withdraw that consent before the proposed amendment reaches the appropriate threshold.

“But what all of that tells you is that the Biden Administration had been fighting this case since June of 2023 and the government’s lawyers never said, ‘you know what? Valame is right! The ERA is part of the Constitution!’ Even after Biden made his declaration that the ERA is part of the Constitution, his administration’s lawyers were still fighting it through the end of his term.,” the commentary said.

It explained, “Still, it is fair to say that the Ninth Circuit is easily the most liberal in America, so for this claim to fail, even against two Clinton appointees, is just about the gold standard for failing. It’s a bit like playing a baseball game where the other side spots your team thirty points and your team still manages to lose. It is a pretty humiliating defeat for this claim.”

WND previously reported, when Biden was making his claim to create the amendment that it was among his “flurry of strange and odd behaviors … during the closing days of his term in the White House.”

The ERA would have said, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

President Joe Biden announced that the Equal Rights Amendment should be considered a ratified addition to the U.S. Constitution, inserting himself into a long-running legal battle over gender equality. https://t.co/szJGL99yZH

— The Associated Press (@AP) January 17, 2025

The history of the ideology is long and convoluted but in every scheme it has failed. And under the Constitution, a president lacks the power to reverse court precedent, congressional action and legal determinations, all of which would be necessary.

The report noted that the U.S. Senate, on a 51-47 vote that failed to reach the required 60 votes, blocked the Equal Rights Amendment from being ratified into law in 2023,

WND reported when far-left Sen Kirsten Gillibrand demanded that the corpse of the amendment be dug out of its grave and added to the Constitution.

Earlier today, the national archivist preemptively stated that she would not legally certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution.

By taking this unprecedented step, she is wrongfully inserting herself into a clear constitutional process, though her role is…

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 18, 2024

For the ratification of amendments to the Constitution, at least 38 states must adopt the proposal.

During the time allowed for the ERA to be ratified, 35 states did adopt it. But that was not enough, even after Congress extended the allowed time.

It failed to meet its ratification requirements by the first deadline in 1972, and again in 1982.

The Archivist of the United States has ruled, “The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.

“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.”

Lower courts also have determined the amendment may not be revived after a deadline for its ratification has expired.

One court advised, “Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.”

The concept first was proposed in the U.S. House in 1923, but it didn’t gain congressional action until the 1970s. But that legislation included a ratification deadline, which was extended once.

Three states, South Dakota, Louisiana and Alabama, in fact, sued to keep the ERA corpse in its grave.

Further, if ratifications after a deadline were to be accepted, there still would be the issue that Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky and South Dakota, after first adopting it, later reversed their decisions and withdrew their adoptions.

Biden now claims long-dead Equal Rights Amendment is part of Constitution!

Gillibrand now demanding that long-dead ERA be added to Constitution