What Was the Primary Purpose of the Failed Equal Rights Amendment?

Meta Description: Learn the primary purpose of the Equal Rights Amendment, what its text proposed, why ratification stalled, and how its legal effects remain debated.

The Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, was designed to make equality of rights under the law a constitutional guarantee regardless of sex. Supporters sought a clear national rule against sex-based legal distinctions, rather than relying only on changing statutes and court decisions. Congress approved the amendment in 1972, but it did not receive ratification from the required number of states within the deadline Congress set. Its purpose, wording, and unfinished ratification process continue to shape debates about constitutional equality.

The ERA received ratification from 35 states by the extended deadline, three short of the required 38. Some states that had initially ratified later adopted measures seeking to rescind their approvals. Whether a state may legally rescind a ratification is contested, and the Constitution does not spell out a clear procedure for resolving every issue involving rescission, deadlines, or the timing of ratifications.

✓
Quick, confidential phone check
Tell us the basics and we’ll point you to the right next step. No long forms.
Confidential • Fast • Helpful guidance

Support for the amendment was broad, but opposition grew during the ratification campaign. Critics raised concerns about possible effects on sex-separated facilities, military obligations, family law, and other policies. Some opponents argued that existing laws already offered adequate protections or that the amendment could shift authority from state legislatures to federal institutions and courts.

Supporters disputed many predictions about the ERA’s effects. They argued that the amendment would not automatically erase every sex-specific law or dictate identical outcomes in all circumstances. Instead, they said that laws would need to meet a constitutional standard of equality, with courts deciding particular disputes. The amendment’s short wording left room for interpretation, however, and uncertainty about that interpretation became part of the political debate.

Public controversy was also shaped by the broader social and political conflicts of the period. The ERA became associated with changing expectations about women’s roles, employment, family life, and government policy. Its ratification campaign was therefore about both constitutional language and competing views of how society should address sex equality.

Was the ERA Legally Ratified After 1982?

After the 1982 deadline, three additional states—Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020—approved the ERA. Their actions brought the number of states that had ratified it at some point to 38. That development renewed the question of whether the amendment could become part of the Constitution despite the deadline and earlier rescission efforts.

The issue has not been settled by a final Supreme Court ruling recognizing the ERA as part of the Constitution. The National Archives and Records Administration, which handles the formal certification process for constitutional amendments, has not certified or published the ERA as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. Federal officials and legal advocates have disagreed over whether the deadline remains binding, whether it could be removed, and how rescissions should be treated.

In 2020, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that Congress could not revive the ERA after the ratification deadline had expired and that the archivist should not certify it based on the later state ratifications. ERA supporters have challenged that position and argued that the states’ approvals should count. The legal and political dispute illustrates the difference between receiving the required number of state approvals at some point and completing the formal constitutional process.

✓
Quick, confidential phone check
Tell us the basics and we’ll point you to the right next step. No long forms.
Confidential • Fast • Helpful guidance

For that reason, descriptions of the ERA as “failed” need context. It did not become part of the Constitution by the deadline specified in Congress’s ratification resolution, and it has not been formally certified as an amendment. At the same time, later state ratifications and continuing legal arguments mean that the amendment’s status remains a subject of debate.

How the ERA Might Have Affected Existing Law

It is not possible to state with certainty how courts would have applied the ERA to every law or policy. The amendment was never in force, so courts did not develop a body of binding decisions interpreting it. Its language would have required judges to decide whether a law denied or abridged equality of rights because of sex.

Potential areas of litigation could have included employment rules, public education, government benefits, family law, and military policy. A constitutional amendment could also have given Congress a new basis for legislation addressing sex discrimination by governments. The specific results would have depended on the facts, the law being challenged, and the legal standards adopted by courts.

The ERA would not have replaced every existing civil rights law. Statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in covered employment, operate through their own rules and enforcement systems. A constitutional equality provision could have complemented those protections by addressing government conduct at a higher legal level.

Claims that the ERA would automatically require a particular result—such as identical treatment in every circumstance—go beyond what the amendment’s text alone establishes. The text promises equality of rights under the law; it does not specify every policy outcome. As with other constitutional guarantees, courts would have had to define how the principle applied in concrete cases.

ERA Versus the Equal Protection Clause

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has applied that clause to sex discrimination, including in Reed v. Reed and later cases. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly mention sex, and its application to sex classifications developed through judicial interpretation.

The ERA’s supporters viewed an explicit reference to sex as a meaningful difference. They wanted the constitutional text itself to prohibit denial or abridgment of equality on account of sex, rather than leaving the protection to inference from general language. They also emphasized Section 2, which expressly authorized Congress to enforce the amendment.

The ERA would not have erased the Equal Protection Clause or replaced it. Instead, it would have added a specific constitutional rule. Whether that rule would have produced broader protection than existing case law is a matter of legal analysis; the practical effect would have depended on how courts and Congress interpreted and enforced it.

Why the ERA Still Matters

The ERA remains relevant because it captures an unresolved question in American constitutional law: whether sex equality should be stated explicitly in the Constitution. The amendment’s supporters continue to argue that a clear text would strengthen protections and provide a firm basis for congressional action. Opponents and skeptics continue to raise questions about the ratification process, the amendment’s interpretation, and the consequences of applying it.

Its history also shows how demanding the Article V amendment process can be. A proposal requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states. Even after decades of advocacy and congressional approval, unresolved disagreements about timing and procedure can determine whether a proposal becomes constitutional law.

For readers asking what the failed Equal Rights Amendment was meant to accomplish, the essential answer is straightforward: it sought to make equality of rights under the law regardless of sex an explicit constitutional guarantee. The debate over its ratification and possible effects is more complicated, but that central purpose is stated directly in Section 1.

Sources and Further Reading

Similar Posts