9th Circuit: Equal Rights Amendment is not in the Constitution

[Shrek]

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/11/04/24-369.pdf

Valame alleges that the MSSA’s requirement that men, but not women, register with the Selective Service System violates his rights under the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”), which Valame contends was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. However, the ERA was not ratified by three-fourths of the States prior to the deadline set by Congress, June 30, 1982, and the Archivist of the United States did not publish or certify the ERA. See Illinois v. Ferriero, 60 F.4th 704, 710-13 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Valame’s claims under the ERA for failure to state a plausible claim. See Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that dismissal “under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory”).

President Biden previously declared that the 28th Amendment is "the law of the land."

[iemanja]

1. Did you think it was ratified?

[Shrek]

3. I didn't

But many here did when President Biden announced it.

[iemanja]

4. I see. nt

[FBaggins]

5. That should put the nonsense to bed

RBG’s statement on it forever closed the door for me… but some here wanted to hold onto illogical hope.

FYI - it was a unanimous decision that included two Clinton judges

[BlueTsunami2018]

2. It's not in the Constitution despite being ratified by 38 states.

Because of some provision in the proposal that states it had to be ratified by 1982.

It’s not currently recognized as an amendment.

[FBaggins]

6. Late update after reading it - It turns out the ruling was made back in July

It just wasn't published (though there was some reporting at the time that I never saw)... which means that it couldn't be used as precedent. Someone must have pressured them to take this additional step.

It looks like more than a dozen federal district courts have addressed the issue (with unanimous results like those seen here).