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.

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...

"it must be proclaimed & universally accepted by all 3 branches"?

Well, not really. Indeed, just today, a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit (2 Dems, 1 GOP) rejected that claim that the ERA is part of the Constitution, this time in a published opinion.
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.

8) (by the required two-thirds margins) the 1972 ERA Resolution. The date mentioned by the panel in today's opinion--June 30, 1982--was set forth in a resolution adopted by both houses of Congress, by simple majority votes, in 1978. The only federal court ever to rule on the "deadline extension"

7) The panel was made up of Judges Barry G. Silverman and Richard C. Tallman, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and 1999 respectively, and Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by President Trump in 2019.

Note: March 22, 1979, was the deadline set by Congress in approving

6) Valame may now, if he so chooses, either request within 45 days a review by an 11-judge en banc court (which can be granted only by majority vote of all active judges on the 9th Circuit), or within 90 days file a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court.

5) As we previously reported, Valame on September 15 formally requested a published opinion. Earlier, on August 28, he had petitioned for a panel rehearing (a request the panel today denied).

4) This published opinion replaces the panel's unpublished memorandum disposition of Vikram Valame's lawsuit, issued July 17, 2025, which simply "reject[ed] as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights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."

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."

4) Assuming that the panel rejects the petition, at that point Valame could, if he so chooses, either request review by an 11-judge en banc court (which can be granted only by majority vote of all active judges on the 9th Circuit), or file a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court.

3) There is no deadline for the panel to act on the petition for panel rehearing, and as of November 3, 2025, it had not done so. Petitions for panel rehearing are very seldom granted.

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."

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."

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

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.