The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, stands at the center of a contentious debate. President Joe Biden recently declared the ERA as ratified, sparking nationwide discussion and legal interpretation challenges. This declaration, viewed by some as a symbolic gesture, places the spotlight on an amendment that has been in limbo since the 1980s. Originally introduced in the 1970s, the ERA aims to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.

In a statement released by the White House, Biden emphasized, It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. His statement was made after Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment in 2020, which technically fulfilled the minimum state ratification requirement.

However, Biden's assertion clashes with previous court decisions and constitutional scholars. Critics argue that the original Congressional ratification deadline expired in 1982, and any ratifications made past that date do not suffice unless Congress extends or removes the deadline. The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has stated that without a new deadline set by Congress, the ERA cannot be considered ratified.

This legal interpretation was further underlined by a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Illinois v. Ferriero. The court ruled that Congress possesses the authority to impose ratification deadlines, reaffirming its previous stance. These judicial decisions, regardless of the support for the ERA's principles, suggest that Biden's declaration may be more aspirational than legally binding. Biden's stance reflects a broader political strategy to emphasize equality and civil rights issues, resonating with progressives and women's rights advocates.

Despite the legal complexities, Biden's statement has garnered support from various activists and organizations like the American Bar Association, which supports viewing the ERA as meeting all necessary conditions for ratification. Proponents see Biden's initiative as an important moment in continuing the fight for gender equality, urging Congress and courts to recognize the amendment formally.

However, political opponents, including commentators from right-leaning outlets such as Red State, have criticized Biden for overstepping constitutional bounds and misrepresenting the legal status of the amendment. They argue that the administration's stance reflects a misunderstanding of constitutional law and the role of the executive in the amendment process.

Adding to the contentious nature of this subject, the role of the archivist has come into focus. Traditionally, the U.S. archivist publishes and certifies constitutional amendments. Despite the President's declaration, the archivist stated that until the deadline issue is legally resolved, there can be no publication or recognition of the ERA. Senior administration officials acknowledged this, recounting that Biden was not ordering the archivist to act, highlighting a potential judiciary resolution as the next step.

Overall, the discussion surrounding the ERA, spurred by Biden's announcement, underlines the complex intersections between legal norms, political advocacy, and constitutional interpretation. It demonstrates how a long-standing debate over equal rights continues to engender differing legal opinions, partisan views, and activism strategies, making it a significant focal point in American constitutional discourse.