In a remarkable decision on Friday, President Joe Biden announced that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is now part of the U.S. Constitution, calling it the 28th Amendment.

This declaration has ignited a debate due to conflicting views on the amendment’s ratification and implications, The Daily Caller reported.

Biden's statement came at a pivotal time as he nears the end of his presidential term with just two days remaining. According to the president, the ERA, which has secured ratification by 38 states as of 2020, is officially "the law of the land." The amendment is intended to establish equal rights for all genders, though interpretations of its impact on issues such as gender distinction and abortion vary widely.

Controversy Surrounding Amendment Certification

Despite the President's assertion, the path to the ERA's official recognition remains contentious. The American Bar Association has endorsed Biden's view, acknowledging that the amendment has cleared necessary hurdles to be added to the Constitution. This perspective aligns with the president’s assertion that the ERA is now part of the supreme law.

However, several legal and procedural figures challenge this conclusion. Dr. Colleen Shogan, the Archivist of the United States, along with Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko, voiced their opposition. They contend the amendment cannot be certified due to unresolved legal, judicial, and procedural issues. Their position is echoed by the National Archives, which states that the legal complexities remain unchanged.

Support and Opposition Within Government

Vice President Kamala Harris has expressed her backing for the ERA's inclusion in the Constitution. She maintains that equal rights are a cornerstone of democracy and the amendment enhances national strength. Harris believes it reflects the will of the American populace, having received widespread support across various states.

The ERA’s journey began in 1972 with Congress's initial approval. However, it failed to secure ratification before the deadline, resulting in prolonged legal debates. In 2023, renewed efforts by former Representatives Cori Bush and Ayanna Pressley pushed for the amendment's inclusion. They cited ongoing battles against sexism and discrimination as urgent reasons for its adoption.

Legal and Social Implications of Inclusion

Concerns regarding the ERA reach beyond its uncertain legal status. Opponents argue that its broad language, particularly its reference to "sex," might lead to unintended consequences such as the dissolution of single-sex spaces. Furthermore, a related attempt by Biden to amend Title IX to cover “gender identity” was overruled by a federal court, highlighting the contentious nature of such legal reforms.

The President's announcement, made with only days left in office, has garnered widespread attention and sparked intense debate. Critics highlight the timing as symbolic, questioning both the legality and the practicality of unilaterally enacting constitutional changes during a lame-duck period.

Future Implications for Constitutional Law

The White House has remained silent in response to requests for further comment, putting the spotlight on Biden's unilateral decision-making process. This silence leaves questions about the administration’s strategy in navigating the complexities of constitutional law.

Among legal analysts, the announcement has reignited discussions about the procedural integrity of constitutional amendments. The debate underscores a broader discourse on the intricate balance between legislative approval and executive declaration in constitutional matters.

Congress's Role and Historical Context

The ERA’s odyssey through U.S. political history highlights enduring struggles over equitable rights and procedural legitimacy. After Congress's initial support in the 1970s, the constitutional amendment faced setbacks due to failing to meet ratification requirements by its deadline, leading to decades of grassroots activism aimed at securing its passage.

Historically, the amendment sought to eliminate legal distinctions based on sex, ensuring equal legal rights regardless of gender. Despite its noble aim, the ERA faced opposition from those concerned about its potential overreach into social standards and family law.

As the nation observes the conclusion of Biden's presidential term, this contentious announcement underscores ongoing debates about the process and implications of constitutional amendments. The future trajectory of the ERA will likely continue to evoke passionate discourse among proponents and critics alike, shaping the landscape of American legal and social policies.