ERA_No_Shortcuts

The Biden Justice Dept. rejected the claim that the ERA has been ratified. Since Jan. 2020, federal judges by 18-0 have rejected attempts by pro-ERA litigants to have the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution; 13 were named by Democratic presidents, 5 by Republicans. 9th Circuit: "meritless."

2) EME suggests that "Colleen Shogun" (Shogan), recently interviewed by NewsHour, failed in her duty when, as Archivist, she declined to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution. But since 2020, 18 federal judges have turned away or rejected claims ERA was ratified.
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT MEDIA WATCH

The activist group "Equal Means Equal" wants to gin up emails to @pbsnews.org, complaining that NewsHour recently failed to recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution. Maybe that's because the claim is now widely recognized as false, if not delusional? (cont.)

Vikram Valame filed the first ERA-based challenge to the male-only draft registration law. Equal Means Equal (EME) falsely claims he argued for a weak standard of review under ERA. Their real issue is a man intruding on their turf. (Both the Valame and EME lawsuits will fail, since there is no ERA.)

THE LAST AMENDMENT

"Some amendments have prescribed time limits for ratification, but the congressional pay amendment did not....That was our last amendment [the 27th, 1992], so the Constitution has now gone for decades without change."--Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law, pp. 149-150.

The Biden Justice Dept. rejected the claim that the ERA has been ratified. Since Jan. 2020, federal judges by 18-0 have rejected attempts by pro-ERA litigants to have the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution; 13 were named by Democratic presidents, 5 by Republicans. 9th Circuit: "meritless."

to assert that a likely imminent government shutdown "offers a critical opportunity" to ratify the ERA via "a reconciliation package." But there is no such package; if there was, the ERA "deadline removal" measure lacks majority support in either house; and even if enacted, it lacks legal effect.

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT BIZARRO WORLD

With each passing year, some advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment dream up increasingly far-fetched scenarios in which the long-expired ERA becomes part of the Constitution. For example, a new alert from Katrina's Dream piles delusional premises four-deep...

Vikram Valame filed the first ERA-based challenge to the male-only draft registration law. Equal Means Equal (EME) falsely claims he argued for a weak standard of review under ERA. Their real issue is a man intruding on their turf. (Both the Valame and EME lawsuits will fail, since there is no ERA.)

Because the Justice Department, in separate reviews under Trump and then Biden, concluded the deadline was constitutional. (Ginsburg agreed.) Defending that position before the D.C. Circuit in 2022, a senior Biden DOJ attorney said that Congress lacked constitutional power to retroactively alter it.

15) An alert reader pointed out that in his Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to the federal district court on Sept. 15, 2023, Vikram Valame said the ERA "contains an 'absolute' and 'self-executing' prohibition on sex-based classifications enshrined in law." So, stricter than "strict scrutiny."

15) An alert reader pointed out that in his Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to the federal district court on Sept. 15, 2023, Vikram Valame said the ERA "contains an 'absolute' and 'self-executing' prohibition on sex-based classifications enshrined in law." So, stricter than "strict scrutiny."

More about this interesting lawsuit (and about another similar lawsuit that is actually further along in the courts) here:
bsky.app/profile/eran...

14) A PDF transcript of the entire five-minute Equal Means Equal video message of September 16, 2025, is available at the link below.
drive.google.com/file/d/1YjrH...

13) Here is the clip from the September 16, 2025 video sent out by Equal Means Equal, in which Wendy Murphy erroneously asserted that only her lawsuit "even mentions" the ERA, and that it is "the only one asking the court to validate the ERA."

@equal-means-equal.bsky.social

12) But then, since the 1972 ERA expired decades ago; no federal court will ever apply it under any standard of review. On July 17, 2025, a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit said, "We reject as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified..."

11) pro-ERA academics actually asserted that the ERA would impose an ABSOLUTE or near-absolute barrier to FACIALLY sex-based classifications (such as the male-only registration law), while strict scrutiny would apply to unique-physical-characteristic or disparate impact cases.

10) There is wide agreement that the ERA (had it been ratified--it was not) would require application of AT LEAST strict scrutiny to sex-based classifications. However, in hearings on the ERA before a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee in 1983,

9) Although we'd like to see the court reach the merits, we think that Equal Means Equal v. Trump is likely to be dismissed for lack of standing, as occurred in Murphy's previous attempt to win judicial validation of the ERA, Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero (2020-2021).

8) A motions hearing in Murphy's late-coming challenge to the male-only Selective Service registration requirement, Equal Means Equal v. Trump, has been postponed to Nov. 17, 2025, before Judge William G. Young, District of Massachusetts.

7) Vikram Valame responded, "I don't think that discrimination based on sex is good for society, or for any individual person, in almost all cases, including who is entitled to bring legal claims."

6) It appears that the real basis for the EME-Murphy attacks are not Valame's actual legal arguments, which they distort, but his sex. In a July 2025 interview, Valame was asked about EME's assertions that "it is imperative" that an ERA case be led by women (i.e., by them).

5) It should be noted that both Murphy and Valame have asserted 5th Amendment claims, in addition to their ERA-based claims. Murphy has misrepresented Valame's lawsuit in this regard as well.

4) Valame then explicitly argued that the male-only registration law "is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest," which is a STRICT SCRUTINY test. Nowhere did he employ intermediate-scrutiny terms of art (e.g., "substantially related to important govt interest").

3) Indeed, Murphy badly misrepresents Valame's arguments. See, for example, Valame's First Amended Complaint (12-19-23) in federal court, in which he argued that the ERA "supersedes" Rostker, a case in which SCOTUS applied intermediate scrutiny under 5th Amendment and upheld the law. Moreover...

2) Murphy insists that Valame asked the court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" under the ERA--yet she is unable to cite any passage in Valame's submissions in district court or 9th Circuit in which Valame did any such thing.

FALSE CLAIMS ON E.R.A. CASES

When attorney Wendy Murphy with Equal Means Equal asserted on 9-16-25 that nobody else's current federal lawsuit "even mentions the Equal Rights Amendment," she knew better. She knew that Vikram Valame's challenge to the male-only draft law is based on the ERA.

A 🧵

UPDATE: On September 22, the federal district court in Massachusetts posted a docket entry stating that the motions hearing in EQUAL MEANS EQUAL V. TRUMP that had been scheduled for September 25 has been rescheduled for November 17 "due to a family emergency."

6) A PDF transcript of the entire five-minute Equal Means Equal video message of September 16, 2025, source of the video clip above, is available at the link below.

drive.google.com/file/d/1YjrH...

5) EQUAL MEANS EQUAL V. TRUMP also invokes the ERA and 5th Amendment. On September 25, Murphy will argue against a government motion to dismiss at a hearing before Federal District Judge William G. Young, District of Massachusetts. An audio stream will be available.

@equal-means-equal.bsky.social