Statement Calling for the Publication and Certification of the Equal Rights Amendment Before President Biden Leaves Office on January 20, 2025
With less than one month remaining before President Biden leaves office on January 20, 2025, the New York City Bar Association (“City Bar”) renews its call for official recognition of the fully-ratified Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To that end, the City Bar urges the President to direct the National Archivist to certify and publish the ERA, notwithstanding the Archivist’s recent Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process.[1]
In the National Archivist’s December 17, 2024 Statement, the Archivist announced that it is the Archivist’s “responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process,” and that, “[a]t this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.”[2]
In essence, the Statement of the Archivist declared that the Archivist refuses to certify and publish the ERA, despite the fact that the requirements for amendment as set forth in Article V of the Constitution have been met. As outlined below, the Archivist’s Statement greatly overstates the nature and scope of the National Archivist’s role in the constitutional amendment process.
I. THE TWO-STEP PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V
On August 6, 2024, the nearly 600-member House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) adopted Resolution 601, which was co-sponsored by the City Bar, together with four constituent entities of the ABA. The ABA Resolution recognizes that, as of January 2020, the ERA is the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[3]
As set forth in the ABA Resolution and the accompanying Report, Article V of the Constitution establishes two requirements that must be fulfilled in order to amend the Constitution.[4] The first requirement is approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. The ERA satisfied this requirement in March 1972, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.[5] The second requirement is ratification by three-quarters of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states). This second requirement was fulfilled on January 27, 2020, when Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA.[6] As such, as of January 27, 2020, the ERA automatically and instantaneously became the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[7] Pursuant to Article V, and as with all prior 27 amendments, no further action by Congress, the Executive Branch, or the courts is legally necessary.
ERA opponents emphasize that, in the Resolution proposing the ERA, Congress inserted a time period – a so-called “time limit” or “deadline” – for ERA ratification by the states.[8] According to ERA opponents, the ERA has not been ratified by the requisite 38 states, because the last three states to ratify – Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia – did so after that purported deadline had expired. However, as the ABA Report explains, Article V of the Constitution is silent as to the timing of state ratification. Article V includes no time limit of any sort on the ratification process. As the ABA Resolution states, “any time limit for ratification of an amendment to the United States Constitution . . . is not consistent with Article V of the Constitution.”[9]
In fact, Congress lacks the power to unilaterally amend the Constitution to add a third requirement to the constitutional amendment process beyond the two requirements that the framers established in Article V. Of course, if Congress wishes to impose a time limit on the process of state ratification of constitutional amendments, it may do so – by adhering to the Article V process for amending the Constitution. In other words, both houses of Congress would have to approve the proposed addition of a time limit to the two existing requirements for ratification in Article V. Then, that proposal to add a time limit to Article V would have to be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states.[10]
II. THE NATIONAL ARCHIVIST’S MINISTERIAL ROLE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS
As a practical matter, there is a third and final step in the constitutional amendment process – the official certification and publication of each newly-ratified amendment by the National Archivist, which is the subject of the Archivist’s December 17, 2024 Statement.[11] That step is legal evidence of the law and carries great weight as official performance of public affirmation, serving notice to all branches of state and federal government, as well as the general public, for purposes of compliance, enforcement, adjudication and further legislation.[12] Notably, however, the Archivist’s certify-and-publish obligation arises only under a statute, i.e., 1 U.S.C. §106b, not the U.S. Constitution.[13] Moreover, although certification and publication have important practical consequences,[14] the Archivist’s certification and publication responsibilities pursuant to §106b are purely ministerial duties and are devoid of any legal effect as to the validity of an amendment.[15] In other words, when – or even whether – the Archivist certifies and publishes a constitutional amendment, the Archivist’s actions have no effect on the legal status of the amendment.
Thus, the Archivist’s Statement that it is the Archivist’s responsibility “to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law”[16] is inaccurate. The Archivist’s Statement fails to acknowledge the very limited and circumscribed nature of the role of the Archivist in the constitutional amendment process and implies, instead, that the Archivist’s role includes evaluating the validity of state ratifications.
III. A CALL TO ACTION
The Equal Rights Amendment consists of a mere 24 words – simple, and, at the same time, extremely powerful, and full of so much promise: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
The ERA has always been important. But it is now more important – and more urgent – than ever before. The greatest legal protection afforded to women today rests on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. However, the focus of the 14th Amendment was not women’s rights, but the rights of formerly enslaved persons. For the past half century, judicial interpretation has extended the 14th Amendment to cover sex discrimination claims. However, Originalists on the Supreme Court and elsewhere contend that, because the framers did not intend for the 14th Amendment to cover sex, it should not be so interpreted now. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Dobbs and elsewhere evince a trend away from longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment as protecting women’s rights.[17]
Women’s rights are under siege from all quarters, and the realities of today may well pale by comparison to what is to come, unless women are accorded the protections of the ERA. Absent decisive action, the young women of today will be the first generation in U.S. history to have fewer rights than their mothers.[18]
The ERA is not a partisan issue. Polls confirm that the ERA enjoys tremendous public support, across party lines.[19] And, notably, the U.S. stands alone in the world, with “the only major written constitution . . . that lacks a provision declaring the equality of the sexes.” In short, we are a global outlier.[20] The time is now to put the 170 million women and girls of this country into the U.S. Constitution. Waiting more than a century for over half of the U.S. population to attain constitutional equality is long enough. Our Constitution is a reflection of our values, and no value is more American than equality.
Over a lifetime in the Senate and The White House, the President has garnered a hard-earned reputation for equity and equality, legendary for his advocacy on behalf of women in particular. Certifying and publishing the ERA is one final and momentous means of cementing that legacy.
President Biden has the authority, the responsibility, and the opportunity to direct that the Equal Rights Amendment be certified and published as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The New York City Bar Association calls on the President to do so now – before it is too late.
December 2024
Footnotes
[1] See Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process from Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko, Dec. 17, 2024 (“Statement of the Archivist” or “Archivist’s Statement”), https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004.
The Archivist’s Statement was reportedly prompted by the ongoing nationwide grassroots campaign calling on President Biden to ensure that the ERA is certified and published before Inauguration Day. This campaign, informally led by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus for the ERA U.S. Representatives Cori Bush and Ayana Pressley, includes petitions, op eds, letters to the editor, tweets, text messages, phone messages, postcards, letters, and rallies and protest demonstrations. See generally, e.g., We just got arrested for demanding that Biden codify sex equality (The Guardian, Dec. 11, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/11/biden-protest-equal-rights-amendment; Gillibrand Presses Biden to Amend the Constitution to Enshrine Sex Equality (New York Times, Dec. 13, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/us/politics/gillibrand-biden-equal-rights-amendment.html; Opinion: President Biden, you vowed to add ratified ERA to our Constitution. Time’s up. (USA Today, Nov. 29, 2024) (reporting that “Women are mobilizing, and VoteEquality has moved our headquarters to Washington, D.C.”), https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/11/29/biden-ratified-era-constitution-equal-rights-amendment/76484339007/; Virginia Senators Urge Biden to Enshrine ERA as 28th Amendment (Style Weekly, Dec. 2, 2024) (identifying November 22, 2024 letter to President from 46 U.S. Senators as but one “part of a nationwide effort on multiple fronts to get the ERA published before Biden leaves office”), https://www.styleweekly.com/virginia-senators-urge-biden-to-enshrine-era-as-28th-amendment/;
Featured Commentary: Time to add ERA to Constitution (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Dec. 18, 2024) (reporting that “[w]omen and men all over the country are working hard to request that President Joe Biden contact the National Archives for publication of the Equal Rights Amendment,” although “this movement has received little coverage from mainstream media”), https://triblive.com/opinion/cheryl-towers-and-nancy-weinstein-time-to-add-era-to-constitution/; Letter to President Biden from 22 Senior Women Labor Leaders & Approx. 500 Additional Signatories re: Certification/Publication of ERA (Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2024/Call_to_Action_on_the_ERA_from_Women_Leaders_of_Labor_Movement.pdf; Letter to President Biden from League of Women Voters (“LWV”), Shattering Glass, & Additional 141 Other Organizations re: Certification/Publication of ERA (Dec. 16, 2024), https://8fdaf192-a63f-4cc1-ba48-30c5727fb699.usrfiles.com/ugd/8fdaf1_7a59401d69c04ed5b9fe5be8dbc7e123.pdf; Letter to President Biden from Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network (“WLGAN”) & National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) re: Certification/Publication of the ERA (Dec. 4, 2024), https://www.nawl.org/nawl-joins-letter-to-president-biden-to-certify-the-era-now; Reproductive Health Coalition Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment (Reproductive Health Coalition, Nov. 15, 2024), https://www.amwa-doc.org/news/amwa-supports-publication-of-the-equal-rights-amendment/; Letter to President Biden from 46 U.S. Senators re: Certification/Publication of ERA (Nov. 22, 2024), https://8fdaf192-a63f-4cc1-ba48-30c5727fb699.usrfiles.com/ugd/8fdaf1_6808cbdc9b2f4e948d9189deb6f3db9b.pdf; Letter to President Biden from 122 Members of U.S. House of Representatives re: Certification/Publication of ERA (Dec. 15, 2024), https://bush.house.gov/imo/media/doc/bushpressley_era_letter_121524.pdf; Alabama Attorney General Urges Adherence to Constitutional Procedures on Expired Equal Rights Amendment (Calhoun Journal, Dec. 19, 2024) (reporting on December 16, 2024 letter to President Biden and National Archivist, from three state attorneys general, sent in response to “reports of efforts to pressure the Biden administration to certify and publish the ERA as the 28th Amendment”), https://calhounjournal.com/alabama-attorney-general-urges-adherence-to-constitutional-procedures-on-expired-equal-rights-amendment/.
[2] See Statement of the Archivist. A number of leading ERA proponents have responded to the Archivist’s Statement in the days since its release. See, e.g., Gillibrand Statement In Response To National Archivist’s Refusal To Certify The Equal Rights Amendment (Office of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/gillibrand-statement-in-response-to-national-archivists-refusal-to-certify-the-equal-rights-amendment/; US Archivist’s Refusal to Publish the Equal Rights Amendment Contradicts Legal Authority and Public Will (Equality Now, Dec. 18, 2024), https://equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/us-archivists-refusal-to-publish-the-equal-rights-amendment-contradicts-legal-authority-and-public-will/; Response to National Archives “Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process” (ERA Coalition, Dec. 17, 2024), https://eracoalition.org/2024/12/17/response-to-national-archives-statement-on-the-equal-rights-amendment-ratification-process/; NOW Responds to “Wrongful and Unprecedented” Step by Archivist of the U.S. to Influence Certification of the Equal Rights Amendment (National Organization for Women (“NOW”), Dec. 18, 2014), https://now.org/media-center/press-release/now-responds-to-wrongful-and-unprecedented-step-by-archivist-of-the-u-s-to-influence-certification-of-the-equal-rights-amendment/.
[3] See American Bar Association Resolution and Report/Report with Recommendations (“R&R”) #601 (Equal Rights Amendment) (adopted by acclamation Aug. 6, 2024) (Report updated Aug. 20, 2024) (“ABA Resolution and Report”), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/women/2024/res-601-adopted.pdf. With approximately 400,000 members in the U.S. and around the world, the ABA is “the largest voluntary association of lawyers in the world” and “the national voice of the legal profession.”
The ABA Resolution and Report address the two procedural issues that ERA opponents have cited to attempt to stymie recognition of the ERA as the 28th Amendment – the timing of state ratification and the legal effect of purported rescissions. The Statement of the Archivist focuses on the timing issue, which this Statement addresses in detail. As to the legal effect of states’ purported rescissions of ratification, the ABA Resolution states that “Article V does not permit a state to rescind its ratification of an amendment to the Constitution,” with the rationale spelled out in the ABA Report. See ABA Report at 12-13.
[4] See U.S. Constitution, Article V (“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof”), https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev.
[5] The vote was 354-24 (94%) in the House of Representatives and 84-8 (91%) in the Senate, far in excess of the two-thirds majority required by Article V of the Constitution. See 117 Cong. Rec. 35815 (1971) (House vote on Oct. 12, 1971); 118 Cong. Rec. 9598 (1972) (Senate vote on March 22, 1972).
[6] See, e.g., With Virginia’s final ratification, ERA fight advances (Associated Press, Jan. 27, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/fd7f31ce50bc15184317d1abefb08da1.
[7] On its website, the National Archives acknowledged that “[a] proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States.” See ABA Report at 13 n.43 (citing and linking to “Constitutional Amendment Process” (National Archives/Office of the Federal Register)). (Note: since the issuance of the ABA Report, which drew attention to the quoted statement, this language apparently has been deleted from the Archives website.)
[8] See H.J. Res. 208, 92d Cong. (1972) (in the preface to the text of the proposed amendment itself (i.e., in the “proposing clause” or the “resolving clause”), specifying seven-year time period for ratification by states), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86- Pg1523.pdf; H.J. Res. 638, 95th Cong. (1978) (extending time for ratification by states to June 30, 1982), https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/house-jointresolution/638.
[9] See ABA Resolution; ABA Report at 6-8.
[10] Presumably no one would argue, for example, that Congress could, by mere legislation, unilaterally deviate from the requirements of Article V and provide that some particular proposed constitutional amendment required ratification by only five states. Similarly, presumably no one would argue that Congress could, by mere legislation, unilaterally vary the requirements of Article V and provide that some proposed particular constitutional amendment required ratification by all 50 states. To permit Congress to do so by legislation would be to permit Congress to effectively circumvent and alter the Constitution and raise (or lower) the Article V bar for ratification of constitutional amendments. Likewise, to allow Congress to unilaterally impose a mandatory time limit on the process of state ratification of a constitutional amendment improperly and unconstitutionally raises the Article V bar for that amendment to become a part of the U.S. Constitution.
[11] See generally ABA Report at 13-14.
[12] See, e.g., ABA Report at 14 (and authorities cited there); 1 U.S.C. §112 (describing compilation of U.S. Statutes at Large, stating that they constitute “legal evidence of laws . . . and proposed or ratified amendments to the Constitution . . . , in all courts of the United States”), https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title1-section112&num=0&edition=1999.
[13] See generally, e.g., ABA Report at 13. Significantly, the statutory language is explicitly mandatory. Specifically, as set forth in 1 U.S.C. § 106b: “Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.” See 1 U.S.C. §106b (emphasis added), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/106b.
Accordingly, upon receipt of Virginia’s “official notice” of ratification in January 2020, the National Archivist was obligated by statute to certify and publish the ERA, “forthwith,” as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. On its own website, the National Archives has underscored the minimal, entirely ministerial nature of the Archivist’s role in the constitutional amendment process, explaining that the Archivist merely “examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature” and “does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions.” See ABA Report at 13 n.43 (citing and linking to “Constitutional Amendment Process” (National Archives/Office of the Federal Register)). Note: following issuance of the ABA Report, which highlighted the quoted language, the quoted text apparently has been deleted from the National Archives website.
[14] See, e.g., Biden Publish The ERA Digital Town Hall at 42:03 (Dec. 3, 2024) (remarks of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand summarizing practical effects of certifying and publishing the ERA, and explaining inevitability of future litigation), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVx9HCNfEAg; Letter to President Biden from 46 U.S. Senators re: Certification & Publication of the ERA (Nov. 22, 2024) (stating that “Once the ERA is published, it will be presumed valid, and the burden of proof will be on the opponents of equality to prove otherwise. That is exactly as it should be and has been for the previous 27 constitutional amendments.”), https://8fdaf192-a63f-4cc1-ba48-30c5727fb699.usrfiles.com/ugd/8fdaf1_6808cbdc9b2f4e948d9189deb6f3db9b.pdf.
[15] See ABA Report at 13-14.
[16] See Statement of the Archivist.
[17] See generally ABA Report at 1-2 (and authorities cited there); see also, e.g., Statement, “Constitution Week,” by U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (MD), Congressional Record, Vol. 170 at S6420-S6421 (Sept. 25, 2024) (Senate) (underscoring that “[t]he current Supreme Court’s approach to the Constitution highlights the need for the ERA, given the apparent belief by some Justices that the Equal Protection Clause should be frozen in time in 1868, casting in doubt those precedents currently holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to sex discrimination”) (“Cardin Statement on Senate Floor”), https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-170/issue-150/senate-.
[18] Recognition of the ERA will afford women constitutionally-secured protections in reproductive autonomy, and in many other areas including closing the gender pay gap, workforce and equal employment rights, discrimination in health care and education, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual and other violence against women.
Certification and publication of the ERA is virtually certain to be challenged in the courts. But litigation of constitutional amendments is nothing new. Historically, amendments have often been the subject of controversy. See, e.g., Opinion: President Biden, you vowed to add ratified ERA to our Constitution. Time’s up. (USA Today, Nov. 29, 2024) (stating that legal historians teach that “almost every constitutional amendment had a messy path”), https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/11/29/biden-ratified-era-constitution-equal-rights-amendment/76484339007/.
For examples of amendments that were certified and published notwithstanding major controversy and even litigation – re: 11th Amendment, see Constitution of the United States at 28 n.3, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (Feb. 1798), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/3/378; re: 14th Amendment, see Constitution Annotated at Intro.6.4 Civil War Amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments),
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-3-4/ALDE_00000388/%5B’ord‘,%20’amendment’%5D; re: 18th Amendment, see Constitution of the United States at 35 n.10; National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/; Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/368/; re: 19th Amendment, see Constitution of the United States at 36 n.11; Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/258/130/; re: 27th Amendment, see Constitution of the United States at 44 n.19; R. Bernstein, The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 61 Fordham Law Review 497 (1992), https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3017&context=flr.
ERA advocates recognize the virtual inevitability of litigation. See, e.g., Gillibrand Presses Biden to Amend the Constitution to Enshrine Sex Equality (New York Times, Dec. 13, 2024) (reporting that Biden directing the Archivist to certify/publish the ERA “would almost certainly invite a legal challenge that would land in the Supreme Court. But Ms. Gillibrand wants Mr. Biden to use his presidential power while he is still has it to force the issue), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/us/politics/gillibrand-biden-equal-rights-amendment.html; Kirsten Gillibrand Leads Last, Desperate Push for Biden to Ratify ERA (Jezebel, Dec. 17, 2024) (reporting that action by President Biden to direct Archivist to certify/publish the ERA “would inevitably invite extensive legal challenges), https://www.jezebel.com/kirsten-gillibrand-leads-last-desperate-push-for-biden-to-ratify-era; Over 120 House Democrats call on Biden to have Equal Rights Amendment ratified (Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2024) (reporting that, if President directs Archivist to certify/publish the ERA, “the publication of the ERA would probably spark legal challenges over the validity of the amendment”), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/15/equal-rights-amendment-biden/.
[19] See, e.g., ABA Report at 11 & n.31 (citing AP-NORC, The Equal Rights Amendment and Discrimination against Women, Jan. 2020 (reporting that roughly three in four Americans support the ERA), https://apnorc.org/projects/the-equal-rightsamendment-and-discrimination-against-women/)); Data for Progress (reporting results of May 2022 poll, indicating that 85% of voters support the ERA, including 93% of Democrats, 79% of Independents, and 79% of Republicans), https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2022/6/dfp_era_toplines.pdf; Public Support for Equal Rights Amendment is Sky-High (Ms. Magazine, May 14, 2020) (reporting that “[r]esults from the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 2020 Survey of Civic Literacy show that a wide majority of respondents – 83 percent – believe the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) should be ratified and incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. Only 8 percent opposed.” and that “Support was virtually equal between men (82 percent) and women (83 percent). Support was highest among younger individuals; 90 percent of 18- to 24-year olds were in favor of the ERA, while 80 percent of those between 50 and 64 years old were supportive and 83 percent of those older than 64 favored it.”), https://msmagazine.com/2020/05/14/public-support-for-equal-rights-amendment-is-sky-high/.
[20] See, e.g., Cardin Statement on Senate Floor (emphasizing that “[e]ighty-five percent of countries have an explicit prohibition against governmental discrimination on the basis of sex” and that “[t]he United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not include an explicit provision in its Constitution”); The US has fallen behind on equality of the sexes (CNN, Jan. 14, 2020) (reporting that “the US is one of just 28 nations that has failed to provide an explicit guarantee of equal rights or non-discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. Globally, the US now lags 165 other nations with stronger constitutional protections for women. Every constitution adopted since 2000 from Afghanistan’s to Zimbabwe’s – has included a gender equality guarantee.”), https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/opinions/equal-rights-amendment-heymann-raub-sprague.
Indeed, the United Nations recently criticized the United States’ failure to include in its Constitution “an explicit guarantee . . . against sex- and gender-based discrimination,” and expressly called for the inclusion of the ERA in the U.S. Constitution. See ABA Report at 14 n.46 (citing CCPR/C/USA/CO/5: Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United States of America, at paras.18-19 (U.N. Human Rights Committee, Dec. 7, 2023), https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/ccprcusaco5-concluding-observations-fifthperiodic-report-united); see also Letter to the United States from U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Its Causes and Consequences (United Nations, Dec. 13, 2024) (criticizing U.S. for “lack of publication and incorporation of the Equal Rights Amendment . . . into the United States Constitution as the 28th Amendment, which would significantly advance sex and gender equality for women in the United States of America.”), https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=29558.