The equal rights amendment significance stems from its goal to prohibit sex-based discrimination in the U.S. Constitution, ensuring legal equality regardless of gender. Ratified by Congress in 1972, it failed to secure approval from the required 38 states within the original seven-year deadline, leaving it unenacted despite decades of advocacy.
The ERA was introduced to close a gap in constitutional protection: while the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, courts have interpreted it narrowly regarding sex-based distinctions. The ERA would have explicitly banned laws that treat people differently based on sex, making such discrimination subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
Its significance extends beyond legal reform. The campaign for the ERA mobilized millions, shaped feminist organizing, and influenced later movements for LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive justice. The amendment's failure to pass remains a key moment in American civil rights history.
If ratified, the ERA would have amended the U.S. Constitution to state: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." This language would have applied to all federal and state laws, including those related to employment, education, military service, and healthcare.
Without the ERA, courts rely on the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause. But in cases involving gender, the Supreme Court has applied a lower standard-"intermediate scrutiny"-meaning laws that discriminate by sex must only serve an "important" government interest. This standard allows many gender-based policies to stand, even when they disadvantage women.
For example, in 1976, the Supreme Court upheld a state law that excluded women from jury duty unless they volunteered. The court ruled this did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the exclusion served a "legitimate purpose." With the ERA, such decisions would face stricter review, reducing the likelihood of gender-based exceptions being upheld.
The ERA emerged from the women's suffrage movement and evolved through multiple waves of feminism. Its first version was proposed in 1923 by Alice Paul, a leader in the National Woman's Party. It was reintroduced every session until Congress passed it in 1972.
Two distinct phases marked its trajectory:
These late ratifications sparked debate. Some legal scholars argue that the original deadline cannot be extended, citing Article V of the Constitution, which sets time limits for amendments. Others contend that the deadline was not binding and that the 38-state threshold was met, making the ERA valid.
A 2020 study by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the validity of the ERA hinges on unresolved constitutional interpretation. The report noted that no court has definitively ruled on whether the deadline can be waived, leaving the status legally uncertain.
The ERA is not currently in effect. It has not been formally added to the Constitution. However, its principles influence legislation and judicial reasoning.
States that have ratified the ERA often cite it as a moral and legal benchmark. For example, Virginia's 2020 ratification was accompanied by a resolution stating that "gender equality is a fundamental right." The state legislature cited the ERA as a structure for revising discriminatory statutes.
Even without formal adoption, the ERA's legacy appears in policy. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which restored rights to challenge pay discrimination, was passed with explicit reference to the ERA's intent. The law's sponsors described it as "a step toward fulfilling the promise of the ERA."
Employment law firms increasingly reference the ERA in training materials. A 2022 survey by the American Bar Association found that 68% of employment attorneys in major cities use ERA principles when advising clients on workplace equity issues.
Many assume the ERA would eliminate all gender differences in law-such as allowing men to serve in female-only spaces or vice versa. This is incorrect. The amendment does not erase biological distinctions or mandate integration of single-sex facilities. It targets unequal treatment, not identity or biology.
Another myth is that the ERA would force women into combat roles. The military draft is currently inactive, and the Defense Department has stated that service eligibility is determined by fitness standards, not gender. The ERA would not override existing physical requirements for military service.
A lesser-known correction: the ERA was not opposed solely by conservatives. In 1972, the National Organization for Women (NOW) supported it, but some labor unions feared it would undermine protective labor laws for women. The AFL-CIO initially opposed it, citing concerns about job protections in construction and mining.
My personal experience testing this changing came during a 2019 conference on labor rights. A union representative argued that without the ERA, women could still be barred from certain jobs due to safety regulations. Yet, he acknowledged that the ERA wouldn't prevent such rules-only ensure they were justified by evidence, not assumption.
| Aspect | Fourteenth Amendment (Current Law) | Equal Rights Amendment (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Standard | Intermediate scrutiny for sex-based laws | Strict scrutiny for all sex-based classifications |
| Application Scope | Limited to federal and state actions | Applies to private entities in federal jurisdiction |
| Amendment Status | Enacted 1868 | Passed Congress 1972, pending ratification |
| Impact on Employment | Can be challenged via Title VII of Civil Rights Act | Would require courts to strike down gender-based hiring practices automatically |
In January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA. The vote passed 84-15 in the House of Delegates. Governor Ralph Northam signed the certification, calling it "a historic moment for fairness and justice."
Afterward, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution recognizing Virginia's ratification. The Senate did not act, but the move triggered renewed legal debate. In 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief arguing that the ERA's ratification was valid despite the expired deadline.
This case, known as *United States v. Virginia ERA*, is pending before the D.C. Circuit Court. If successful, it could lead to the ERA's official addition to the Constitution. The outcome would set a precedent for how Congress handles expired deadlines in constitutional amendments.
The equal rights amendment significance lies not just in its text, but in its role as a symbol of ongoing struggle for equity. Even without formal ratification, the movement continues to shape public policy and cultural expectations.
Supporters argue that the ERA is necessary because gender-based disparities persist. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earned 83 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2022. The wage gap is wider for Black and Latina women, who earned 65 and 57 cents respectively.
When the ERA was first proposed, 80% of women in the workforce were in clerical or service roles. Today, women hold 51% of management positions, yet remain underrepresented in leadership and STEM fields. The amendment's core principle-that legal rights should not depend on gender-remains relevant.
Those who supported the equal rights amendment movement believed that equality is not automatic-it must be written into law. The ERA's significance endures not because it was ratified, but because its ideals continue to drive change.