ERA_No_Shortcuts
@eranoshortcuts.bsky.social
The only account tracking the 1972 federal ERA in courts, Executive Branch, & Congress, with viewpoint skeptical of ERA-revival claims. Judges named by Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have, without exception, rejected claims the ERA has been ratified.
The Virginia legislature purported to "ratify" the ERA in Jan. 2020, but the ratification deadline was decades past. Both the Trump and Biden Justice Departments concluded that the ERA was NOT ratified. Multiple federal courts have since agreed, as recently as Nov. 4, 2025.
bsky.app/profile/eran...
bsky.app/profile/eran...
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 AM
The Virginia legislature purported to "ratify" the ERA in Jan. 2020, but the ratification deadline was decades past. Both the Trump and Biden Justice Departments concluded that the ERA was NOT ratified. Multiple federal courts have since agreed, as recently as Nov. 4, 2025.
bsky.app/profile/eran...
bsky.app/profile/eran...
9) held that this attempted retroactive modification was unconstitutional on two different grounds. Since no additional states ratified the ERA during the purported 39-month "deadline extension," the U.S. Supreme Court later dismissed the matter as moot.
November 5, 2025 at 12:22 AM
9) held that this attempted retroactive modification was unconstitutional on two different grounds. Since no additional states ratified the ERA during the purported 39-month "deadline extension," the U.S. Supreme Court later dismissed the matter as moot.
4) This published opinion replaces the panel's unpublished memorandum disposition of Vikram Valame's lawsuit, issued July 17, 2025, which simply "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."
November 5, 2025 at 12:22 AM
4) This published opinion replaces the panel's unpublished memorandum disposition of Vikram Valame's lawsuit, issued July 17, 2025, which simply "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."
3) "...Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Valame's claims under the ERA for failure to state a plausible claim."
November 5, 2025 at 12:22 AM
3) "...Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Valame's claims under the ERA for failure to state a plausible claim."
2) In Valame v. Trump, challenging the Military Selective Service Act male-only registration, the panel ruled, "[T]he ERA was not ratified by three-fourths of the States prior to the deadline set by Congress, June 30, 1982, and the Archivist of the United States did not publish or certify the ERA."
November 5, 2025 at 12:22 AM
2) In Valame v. Trump, challenging the Military Selective Service Act male-only registration, the panel ruled, "[T]he ERA was not ratified by three-fourths of the States prior to the deadline set by Congress, June 30, 1982, and the Archivist of the United States did not publish or certify the ERA."
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED, 9TH CIRCUIT PANEL HOLDS IN UNANIMOUS PUBLISHED OPINION
A 🧵
1) A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit today (November 4, 2025) unanimously ruled, in a published opinion, that the Equal Rights Amendment is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
A 🧵
1) A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit today (November 4, 2025) unanimously ruled, in a published opinion, that the Equal Rights Amendment is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
November 5, 2025 at 12:22 AM
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT NOT RATIFIED, 9TH CIRCUIT PANEL HOLDS IN UNANIMOUS PUBLISHED OPINION
A 🧵
1) A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit today (November 4, 2025) unanimously ruled, in a published opinion, that the Equal Rights Amendment is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
A 🧵
1) A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit today (November 4, 2025) unanimously ruled, in a published opinion, that the Equal Rights Amendment is not part of the U.S. Constitution.
2) In the petition, Valame (representing himself) wrote, "The ERA's validity is a question of exceptional consequence to millions of Americans... The panel should amend its opinion to specify the rationale(s) on which its ERA holding rests."
November 4, 2025 at 1:31 PM
2) In the petition, Valame (representing himself) wrote, "The ERA's validity is a question of exceptional consequence to millions of Americans... The panel should amend its opinion to specify the rationale(s) on which its ERA holding rests."
VALAME SEEKS E.R.A. REHEARING
1) In Valame v. Trump, Vikram Valame on 8-28-25 filed a petition asking for rehearing by the 9th Circuit panel that on July 17 "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Right Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."
1) In Valame v. Trump, Vikram Valame on 8-28-25 filed a petition asking for rehearing by the 9th Circuit panel that on July 17 "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Right Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."
November 4, 2025 at 1:31 PM
VALAME SEEKS E.R.A. REHEARING
1) In Valame v. Trump, Vikram Valame on 8-28-25 filed a petition asking for rehearing by the 9th Circuit panel that on July 17 "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Right Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."
1) In Valame v. Trump, Vikram Valame on 8-28-25 filed a petition asking for rehearing by the 9th Circuit panel that on July 17 "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Right Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution."
2) EME suggests that "Colleen Shogun" (Shogan), recently interviewed by NewsHour, failed in her duty when, as Archivist, she declined to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution. But since 2020, 18 federal judges have turned away or rejected claims ERA was ratified.
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
October 14, 2025 at 1:18 PM
2) EME suggests that "Colleen Shogun" (Shogan), recently interviewed by NewsHour, failed in her duty when, as Archivist, she declined to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution. But since 2020, 18 federal judges have turned away or rejected claims ERA was ratified.
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT MEDIA WATCH
The activist group "Equal Means Equal" wants to gin up emails to @pbsnews.org, complaining that NewsHour recently failed to recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution. Maybe that's because the claim is now widely recognized as false, if not delusional? (cont.)
The activist group "Equal Means Equal" wants to gin up emails to @pbsnews.org, complaining that NewsHour recently failed to recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution. Maybe that's because the claim is now widely recognized as false, if not delusional? (cont.)
October 14, 2025 at 1:18 PM
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT MEDIA WATCH
The activist group "Equal Means Equal" wants to gin up emails to @pbsnews.org, complaining that NewsHour recently failed to recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution. Maybe that's because the claim is now widely recognized as false, if not delusional? (cont.)
The activist group "Equal Means Equal" wants to gin up emails to @pbsnews.org, complaining that NewsHour recently failed to recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution. Maybe that's because the claim is now widely recognized as false, if not delusional? (cont.)
THE LAST AMENDMENT
"Some amendments have prescribed time limits for ratification, but the congressional pay amendment did not....That was our last amendment [the 27th, 1992], so the Constitution has now gone for decades without change."--Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law, pp. 149-150.
"Some amendments have prescribed time limits for ratification, but the congressional pay amendment did not....That was our last amendment [the 27th, 1992], so the Constitution has now gone for decades without change."--Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law, pp. 149-150.
October 12, 2025 at 5:44 PM
THE LAST AMENDMENT
"Some amendments have prescribed time limits for ratification, but the congressional pay amendment did not....That was our last amendment [the 27th, 1992], so the Constitution has now gone for decades without change."--Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law, pp. 149-150.
"Some amendments have prescribed time limits for ratification, but the congressional pay amendment did not....That was our last amendment [the 27th, 1992], so the Constitution has now gone for decades without change."--Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law, pp. 149-150.
The Biden Justice Dept. rejected the claim that the ERA has been ratified. Since Jan. 2020, federal judges by 18-0 have rejected attempts by pro-ERA litigants to have the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution; 13 were named by Democratic presidents, 5 by Republicans. 9th Circuit: "meritless."
October 7, 2025 at 11:57 AM
The Biden Justice Dept. rejected the claim that the ERA has been ratified. Since Jan. 2020, federal judges by 18-0 have rejected attempts by pro-ERA litigants to have the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution; 13 were named by Democratic presidents, 5 by Republicans. 9th Circuit: "meritless."
to assert that a likely imminent government shutdown "offers a critical opportunity" to ratify the ERA via "a reconciliation package." But there is no such package; if there was, the ERA "deadline removal" measure lacks majority support in either house; and even if enacted, it lacks legal effect.
September 30, 2025 at 1:49 PM
to assert that a likely imminent government shutdown "offers a critical opportunity" to ratify the ERA via "a reconciliation package." But there is no such package; if there was, the ERA "deadline removal" measure lacks majority support in either house; and even if enacted, it lacks legal effect.
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT BIZARRO WORLD
With each passing year, some advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment dream up increasingly far-fetched scenarios in which the long-expired ERA becomes part of the Constitution. For example, a new alert from Katrina's Dream piles delusional premises four-deep...
With each passing year, some advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment dream up increasingly far-fetched scenarios in which the long-expired ERA becomes part of the Constitution. For example, a new alert from Katrina's Dream piles delusional premises four-deep...
September 30, 2025 at 1:49 PM
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT BIZARRO WORLD
With each passing year, some advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment dream up increasingly far-fetched scenarios in which the long-expired ERA becomes part of the Constitution. For example, a new alert from Katrina's Dream piles delusional premises four-deep...
With each passing year, some advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment dream up increasingly far-fetched scenarios in which the long-expired ERA becomes part of the Constitution. For example, a new alert from Katrina's Dream piles delusional premises four-deep...
Vikram Valame filed the first ERA-based challenge to the male-only draft registration law. Equal Means Equal (EME) falsely claims he argued for a weak standard of review under ERA. Their real issue is a man intruding on their turf. (Both the Valame and EME lawsuits will fail, since there is no ERA.)
September 25, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Vikram Valame filed the first ERA-based challenge to the male-only draft registration law. Equal Means Equal (EME) falsely claims he argued for a weak standard of review under ERA. Their real issue is a man intruding on their turf. (Both the Valame and EME lawsuits will fail, since there is no ERA.)
Because the Justice Department, in separate reviews under Trump and then Biden, concluded the deadline was constitutional. (Ginsburg agreed.) Defending that position before the D.C. Circuit in 2022, a senior Biden DOJ attorney said that Congress lacked constitutional power to retroactively alter it.
September 25, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Because the Justice Department, in separate reviews under Trump and then Biden, concluded the deadline was constitutional. (Ginsburg agreed.) Defending that position before the D.C. Circuit in 2022, a senior Biden DOJ attorney said that Congress lacked constitutional power to retroactively alter it.
15) An alert reader pointed out that in his Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to the federal district court on Sept. 15, 2023, Vikram Valame said the ERA "contains an 'absolute' and 'self-executing' prohibition on sex-based classifications enshrined in law." So, stricter than "strict scrutiny."
September 24, 2025 at 12:27 PM
15) An alert reader pointed out that in his Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to the federal district court on Sept. 15, 2023, Vikram Valame said the ERA "contains an 'absolute' and 'self-executing' prohibition on sex-based classifications enshrined in law." So, stricter than "strict scrutiny."
15) An alert reader pointed out that in his Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to the federal district court on Sept. 15, 2023, Vikram Valame said the ERA "contains an 'absolute' and 'self-executing' prohibition on sex-based classifications enshrined in law." So, stricter than "strict scrutiny."
September 24, 2025 at 12:27 PM
15) An alert reader pointed out that in his Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to the federal district court on Sept. 15, 2023, Vikram Valame said the ERA "contains an 'absolute' and 'self-executing' prohibition on sex-based classifications enshrined in law." So, stricter than "strict scrutiny."
13) Here is the clip from the September 16, 2025 video sent out by Equal Means Equal, in which Wendy Murphy erroneously asserted that only her lawsuit "even mentions" the ERA, and that it is "the only one asking the court to validate the ERA."
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
13) Here is the clip from the September 16, 2025 video sent out by Equal Means Equal, in which Wendy Murphy erroneously asserted that only her lawsuit "even mentions" the ERA, and that it is "the only one asking the court to validate the ERA."
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
@equal-means-equal.bsky.social
12) But then, since the 1972 ERA expired decades ago; no federal court will ever apply it under any standard of review. On July 17, 2025, a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit said, "We reject as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified..."
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
12) But then, since the 1972 ERA expired decades ago; no federal court will ever apply it under any standard of review. On July 17, 2025, a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit said, "We reject as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified..."
6) It appears that the real basis for the EME-Murphy attacks are not Valame's actual legal arguments, which they distort, but his sex. In a July 2025 interview, Valame was asked about EME's assertions that "it is imperative" that an ERA case be led by women (i.e., by them).
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
6) It appears that the real basis for the EME-Murphy attacks are not Valame's actual legal arguments, which they distort, but his sex. In a July 2025 interview, Valame was asked about EME's assertions that "it is imperative" that an ERA case be led by women (i.e., by them).
5) It should be noted that both Murphy and Valame have asserted 5th Amendment claims, in addition to their ERA-based claims. Murphy has misrepresented Valame's lawsuit in this regard as well.
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
5) It should be noted that both Murphy and Valame have asserted 5th Amendment claims, in addition to their ERA-based claims. Murphy has misrepresented Valame's lawsuit in this regard as well.
4) Valame then explicitly argued that the male-only registration law "is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest," which is a STRICT SCRUTINY test. Nowhere did he employ intermediate-scrutiny terms of art (e.g., "substantially related to important govt interest").
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
4) Valame then explicitly argued that the male-only registration law "is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest," which is a STRICT SCRUTINY test. Nowhere did he employ intermediate-scrutiny terms of art (e.g., "substantially related to important govt interest").
3) Indeed, Murphy badly misrepresents Valame's arguments. See, for example, Valame's First Amended Complaint (12-19-23) in federal court, in which he argued that the ERA "supersedes" Rostker, a case in which SCOTUS applied intermediate scrutiny under 5th Amendment and upheld the law. Moreover...
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
3) Indeed, Murphy badly misrepresents Valame's arguments. See, for example, Valame's First Amended Complaint (12-19-23) in federal court, in which he argued that the ERA "supersedes" Rostker, a case in which SCOTUS applied intermediate scrutiny under 5th Amendment and upheld the law. Moreover...
2) Murphy insists that Valame asked the court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" under the ERA--yet she is unable to cite any passage in Valame's submissions in district court or 9th Circuit in which Valame did any such thing.
September 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
2) Murphy insists that Valame asked the court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" under the ERA--yet she is unable to cite any passage in Valame's submissions in district court or 9th Circuit in which Valame did any such thing.