NAWL Joins Letter to President Biden to Certify the ERA Now

December 4, 2024

December 4, 2024



President Joseph R. Biden

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500


Re: Certify the ERA Now!


Dear President Biden:


We are writing on behalf of Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc. and the National Association of Women Lawyers, two nationwide organizations that together represent the voice of hundreds of thousands of lawyers.


Women’s rights are under attack in ways we have not seen in generations. Pregnancy in states with abortion bans has become a death sentence for some women and, with the criminalization of women’s health care, more will die. Medical students and residents in states with abortion bans are not getting the training they need in order to give women the accepted standard of care, and “maternal health care deserts” are now a reality. Some in the GOP seek to erase more than 100 years of history. Some propose repealing the 19th Amendment, which enshrined women’s right to vote in the Constitution.


In this environment, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is more important than ever.


The operative language in the ERA simply states:


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 now been ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the States required by the Constitution. We call upon you to complete the Constitutional process and instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA now.


Generations of women (and men who support them) have fought for laws to allow women to have a job outside the home, own a home, obtain a loan or credit card, and get the health care they need. However, these laws at best are a patchwork which can be narrowed or even repealed. The President or the Executive Branch at the federal level and other governments (state, local) can refuse to enforce them. Congress can tell DC and the Territories what their laws on these issues should be. Courts can narrow them — or as with Dobbs, erase decades of freedom.


First proposed by Alice Paul in December 1923, the ERA was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 through 1970, but was bottled up in Committee for decades, with Committee Chairs refusing to bring it up for a vote. In 1970, Congresswoman Martha Griffiths (D., Mich.; 84th-93d Congresses; Chair, Ways & Means) filed a discharge petition which upon passage brought the ERA to the floor of the House of Representatives where it passed. Although the Senate failed to approve it that year, the next year bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress passed the Amendment overwhelmingly, far exceeding the 2/3 majority required in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.


Six states ratified the Amendment within six days of Congressional passage on March 22, 1972. By the end of 1973, 30 States had ratified it. By the end of 1977, 35 States had ratified the ERA, but then progress stalled. Decades later, with the momentum created by the Women’s Marches and the #MeToo movement, Nevada and Illinois ratified; and on January 27, 2020, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the ERA, reaching the 3/4 of the States required by the Constitution. As set forth in the Constitution, the ERA became part of the Constitution when Virginia ratified it in 2020. The Executive Branch has no role in the amendment process, as shown by a plain reading of Article V. The only remaining requirement necessary now to add the ERA to the Constitution – where it belongs – is publication and certification by the Archivist of the United States, as has been done with the other 27 Amendments to the Constitution.


We call on you in your remaining days in office to instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA now. There is no reason that the Archivist has failed to take this ministerial step. Legislators in Congress have introduced resolutions recognizing that the ERA has been validly ratified, and it should be published and certified by the Archivist. In August 2024, the American Bar Association, the world’s largest voluntary association of lawyers, adopted a policy supporting certification and formal addition of the ERA to the Constitution.


Contrary to its opponents’ arguments, States cannot rescind their ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. The ratification process is silent on any right to rescind, and there is no such implied right in the text or case law. Even an “originalist” reading of the Constitution and its related history confirms this point. No less a commentator on the subject than James Madison himself, in a letter dated July 20, 1788 to Alexander Hamilton, declared that ratification is “in toto and forever.”1 Indeed, some States attempted to rescind their ratifications of the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, but neither Congress nor the Executive Branch recognized those attempts. Thus, assertions by States that they want to rescind their earlier ratifications of the ERA should not be allowed to hold up the addition of the ERA to the Constitution. As the text of the Constitution and legal scholars confirm, purported rescissions of votes ratifying the ERA are null and void.


In addition, the Constitution includes no provision requiring that ratifications be “contemporaneous” with each other, and any such provision purporting to impose such a time frame is superfluous. This is shown by the plain language of Article V which contains no such timing requirement. None is found in the text of the Amendment itself and so the 38 States that voted to ratify the ERA did not vote on any such timing requirement. Another Constitutional Amendment, which included no timing requirement, received its final ratification in 1992, more than 200 years after Congress first sent it to the States for ratification — in 1789. That Amendment, now the 27th Amendment, is nicknamed the “Madison Amendment,” after Founding Father James Madison who first proposed it. The Amendment, which precludes a sitting Congress from voting on its own compensation, was ratified by six States between 1789 and 1791, but then sat dormant for almost 200 years before States in the 1980s began once again to ratify it. The Archivist did not hesitate to publish and certify the Madison Amendment once it received ratification from the 38th State, thus confirming its rightful addition to the Constitution in 1992. The 48-year time period here for the ERA pales in comparison to the 203-year period between the first and last ratifications for the 27th Amendment.


Under the Constitution and relevant statute (1 U.S.C. § 106b), the Archivist should now publish and certify the ERA now. We ask that you call on the Archivist to complete that administrative task immediately, confirming the addition of the ERA to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment.




Respectfully, 


Karen Richardson

Executive Director

National Association of Women Lawyers

National Association of Women Lawyers logo

Corrine P. Parver

President

Cory M. Amron

Vice President

Women Lawyers on Guard Action Network

Women Lawyers on Guard Action Network logo

1 | https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-alexander-hamilton-6


The mission of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) is to provide leadership, a collective voice, and essential resources to advance women in the legal profession and advocate for the equality of women under the law.

Since 1899, NAWL has been empowering women in the legal profession, cultivating a diverse membership dedicated to equality, mutual support, and collective success.

June 24, 2026
Women Lawyers On Guard Inc .  and the National Association of Women Lawyers issue this joint statement on the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . Before Dobbs , we co-led an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of women’s legal organizations, urgi ng the Court to preserve nearly 50 years of settled precedent. That brief explained that women and their families, including women attorneys, have relied on the constitutional guarantee of autonomy over decisions affecting their lives, health, families, and futures. We warned that overturning those precedents would inflict immediate and lasting harm on the health, dignity, equality, and futures of all people who can become pregnant. 1 Four years later, our warnings have proven correct. Dobbs stripped millions of people of a federal constitutional right, allowed states to intrude into the most intimate medical and family decisions, and created a perilous legal landscape in which basic rights depend on geography, income, and access to legal and medical resources. This is not abstract. It is a daily, preventable harm caused by laws designed to restrict and, in many cases, eliminate access to abortion care. Across the country, abortion bans and restrictions have forced patients into medical emergencies, delayed or denied essential care, and deepened long-standing inequities for those with the fewest resources, including people of color, rural communities, young people, immigrants, and those already facing barriers to health care. In Texas, for example, reporting has documented women who died after emergency pregnancy or miscarriage care was delayed because doctors and hospitals feared that treatment could be viewed as a violation of the state’s abortion ban. Dobbs has also created a two-tier system of rights in which access to essential health care depends on state lines: patients from Texas and other ban states must travel hundreds or thousands of miles, often at great personal cost, while protective states use shield laws and expanded services to preserve access in the face of escalating interstate conflict. Access to fundamental health care should not depend on a person’s ZIP code, income, age, race, or ability to navigate a hostile legal landscape. The fight for access has now moved beyond state bans to nationwide attacks on medication abortion. Mifepristone, part of the most common medication abortion regimen, has been approved by the FDA for more than two decades and is used in a majority of abortions in the United States. Yet current litigation over mifepristone seeks to reimpose medically unnecessary limits on telehealth prescribing, pharmacy dispensing, and mailing—restrictions that might function as a national ban on practical access to medication abortion, even where abortion remains legal. So much for leaving abortion to the states. The dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan recognized what the majority rejected: “Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.” On this anniversary, we renew our commitment to the work required to restore and protect reproductive freedom. We call on lawmakers, courts, bar leaders, and members of the legal profession to meet this moment with urgency, courage, and action. As women lawyers’ organizations, we will continue to use our voices, our expertise, and the power of the law to fight for reproductive health and justice. [1] Read our brief here: https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Organizations-of-Women-Lawyers-Amicus-Brief.pdf .
April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
More Posts