Welcome to Centerline Woman, a space where women can engage with political and social issues—thoughtfully, respectfully, and without partisanship. Here, we focus on understanding how policies and cultural shifts affect women’s lives, work, families, and futures, without aligning with any political party or agenda.

Bridging the Divide. Centering What Matters!!!

Beyond Politics. Toward Principle.

,

The Constitution’s Broken Promise: How a Century of Political Cowardice Has Left American Women WIthout Legal Equality – and Why the Clock is Running Out

More than a century after the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in the United States Congress, American women remain the only demographic group whose constitutional right to equality is not explicitly guaranteed by the nation’s founding document.

This article examines the historical, legal, and empirical dimensions of that omission — tracing the ERA’s origins in the suffrage movement of the 1920s through its liminal legal status in 2026, in which 38 states have formally ratified it yet no court or government body has certified it as law. Drawing on constitutional scholarship, federal court records, public opinion data, wage statistics, and recent Supreme Court decisions, this analysis argues that the absence of a ratified ERA constitutes a structural vulnerability with measurable, ongoing consequences for women across domains including labor economics, reproductive autonomy, educational equity, and workplace safety. The article further contends that recent trends in judicial originalism have dramatically elevated the risk that existing statutory protections for women will be substantially narrowed or dismantled, and that without constitutional entrenchment, advances in women’s legal equality remain politically contingent rather than legally foundational.

Keywords: Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, women’s constitutional rights, sex discrimination, originalism, 14th Amendment, gender wage gap, intermediate scrutiny.

The Illusion of Constitutional Protection

Ask most Americans whether the United States Constitution guarantees equal rights to women, and the answer will almost universally be yes. That answer is wrong. As of May 2026, the United States Constitution explicitly guarantees equal rights to women in exactly one domain: the right to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, stands as the sole provision in the nation’s founding charter that formally affirms women’s equal standing with men under law (Equal Rights Amendment Organization, 2025). Every other protection women have won — equal pay, workplace anti-discrimination law, protection from sexual harassment, Title IX educational equity, protections against pregnancy discrimination — exists not as a constitutional right but as a statutory one, meaning it was created by Congress, can be repealed by Congress, and is subject to narrowing or elimination with each shift in political power.

A 2020 poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 72% of Americans incorrectly believe women and men already have explicitly equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution (AP-NORC, 2020). This is not a minor misunderstanding. It is the foundational civic misconception that has allowed the Equal Rights Amendment — a 52-word constitutional amendment that would close this gap permanently — to languish in legal limbo for over a century while the legal architecture protecting women’s rights quietly, methodically, erodes.

This article is not an abstract constitutional debate. It is an account of a real and measurable legal vulnerability that affects approximately 167 million American women, with particular severity for women of color, low-income women, and women in states with weak anti-discrimination statutes. It argues that the failure to ratify the ERA is not a technicality or an administrative delay. It is one of the most consequential unresolved constitutional questions in American history, and the window for resolving it may be narrowing.

Historical Context: From Suffrage to Stasis

To understand the ERA’s current status, it is necessary to understand the legal world that preceded it. Prior to 1920, women in the United States had no constitutionally protected voting rights and were, in most states, excluded from jury service, barred from certain professions, and denied the legal standing to sign contracts independently of their husbands (National Women’s History Alliance, 2023). The common law doctrine of coverture — derived from English law — held that a woman’s legal identity was subsumed into that of her husband upon marriage, rendering her legally non-existent in many civil matters (National Women’s History Alliance, 2023).

The Nineteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1920 ended women’s political disenfranchisement, at least formally. However, as suffragists Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman recognized almost immediately, the vote alone did not confer equal citizenship. In 1923, Paul drafted the first version of what would become the Equal Rights Amendment, which read in its final form: ‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex’ (Equality Now, 2025). The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 onward, making it one of the most persistently proposed — and persistently blocked — pieces of constitutional legislation in American history.

The ERA did not pass both chambers of Congress until 1972, nearly five decades after its introduction, when it cleared the House 354 to 24 and the Senate 84 to 8 — margins that far exceeded the required two-thirds supermajority and reflected genuinely broad bipartisan consensus (National Park Service, 2023). Congress attached a seven-year ratification deadline for the states, later extended to 1982. By that deadline, 35 states had ratified — three short of the constitutionally required 38 (Brennan Center for Justice, 2020). The ERA appeared finished.

Then, unexpectedly, the count moved again. Nevada ratified in 2017. Illinois in 2018. Virginia — in a vote celebrated by suffrage advocates worldwide — ratified on January 27, 2020, bringing the total to 38 (AP-NORC, 2020). By the plain arithmetic of Article V of the Constitution, which requires approval by three-fourths of states, the threshold had been met. Whether that meeting of the threshold after Congress’s imposed deadline is legally operative remains the central dispute animating ERA litigation in 2026.

The Legal Black Hole: What the 14th Amendment Does — and Does Not — Do

In the absence of the ERA, the primary constitutional protection against sex discrimination has been the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment was not written with women in mind. It was drafted to protect the rights of formerly enslaved persons and explicitly introduced the word ‘male’ into the Constitution for the first time in Section 2, a provision that implied the franchise belonged to men (New York City Bar Association, 2025). For the first 103 years of the Fourteenth Amendment’s existence, the Supreme Court declined to apply it to sex discrimination at all.

It was not until Reed v. Reed (1971) that the Supreme Court, for the first time in American history, struck down a state law on the grounds that it discriminated against women in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (National Women’s Law Center, 2011). The Idaho statute in question required that male relatives be preferred over female relatives as administrators of estates — a law so plainly rooted in sex-based subordination that it passed without serious debate. The Court unanimously invalidated it, declaring such sex-based legislative classifications ‘the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause’ (Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 1971). But critically, the Court declined to treat sex as a ‘suspect classification’ — the legal designation that would trigger the same demanding standard of review applied to race-based laws.

Five years later, in Craig v. Boren (1976), the Court established ‘intermediate scrutiny’ as the standard for evaluating sex-based classifications. Under this standard, laws that discriminate on the basis of sex must be substantially related to an important government interest — a standard more demanding than the ‘rational basis’ test applied to ordinary legislation, but less demanding than the ‘strict scrutiny’ applied to racial classifications, which requires a compelling interest achieved through narrowly tailored means (Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, 2020). The distinction is not merely academic. Strict scrutiny is extremely difficult for governments to satisfy, which is why race-based discrimination is almost always unconstitutional. Intermediate scrutiny, by contrast, gives the government considerably more latitude — and has produced uneven and sometimes contradictory results in sex discrimination cases.

The practical consequence of this arrangement is that sex discrimination has never been treated with the same constitutional seriousness as racial discrimination in American law. Laws and policies that would be instantly invalidated if they classified by race can survive if they classify by sex, provided the government can articulate a sufficiently important interest. Constitutional law scholars and advocates for women’s equality have argued for decades that the ERA would change this by requiring strict scrutiny of sex-based classifications — shifting the burden of proof and raising the constitutional floor (Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, 2020; New York City Bar Association, 2025).

The Empirical Stakes: What Women Actually Lose Without the ERA

The absence of constitutional protection for women’s equality is not a theoretical concern. It has measurable, ongoing consequences across multiple domains of American life.

In the labor market, the gender wage gap has proven stubbornly resistant to elimination. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, women were paid 18.0% less than men on an hourly basis in 2024, after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state — meaning the gap cannot be explained solely by occupational choice or experience (Economic Policy Institute, 2025). The Institute for Women’s Policy Research reported that in 2024, women earned only 80.9 cents for every dollar earned by men — the lowest ratio since 2016 — representing the second consecutive year in which the gender pay gap worsened (IWPR, 2025). For Black women, the gap is approximately 64 cents; for Latina women, approximately 57 cents (IWPR, 2025). At current rates of progress, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research projects that pay equity will not be achieved until well into the next century.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 has been in force for over six decades, and yet the wage gap persists — in part because the statute contains loopholes, including the ‘factor other than sex’ defense, that allow employers to maintain discriminatory pay structures under the guise of facially neutral justifications (American Medical Women’s Association, 2023). These loopholes exist in legislation, not the Constitution. The ERA would provide a constitutional basis for Congress to pass stronger, loophole-free equal pay legislation and would provide courts with a higher standard against which to evaluate wage discrimination claims.

In the domain of reproductive autonomy, the consequences of the absence of constitutional protection have been most dramatically visible since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion that had stood for 50 years. In its reasoning, the majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect rights that are not ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ — a standard that, applied to 18th-century American society in which women had virtually no recognized legal rights, is deeply hostile to women’s constitutional equality (Baker, 2023). As Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky observed: ‘There’s no doubt if they are going to be originalist and stick to originalism, then there’s not protection for women under the equal protection clause’ (as cited in Baker, 2023, para. 14). As of 2024, more than a dozen states had enacted near-total or total bans on abortion, with additional restrictions in many others (Center for American Progress, 2025).

In the arena of workplace safety, the EEOC’s regulatory authority to protect workers from harassment has been directly curtailed. In May 2025, a federal district court vacated portions of the EEOC’s 2024 guidance on workplace harassment of LGBTQ+ employees — including protections against misgendering and denial of bathroom access consistent with gender identity — finding that the EEOC had exceeded its statutory authority (Ogletree, 2025). The rollback followed Executive Order 14168, issued by President Trump in January 2025, which established that the federal government recognizes only two biological sexes (Ogletree, 2025). The practical effect for women — particularly transgender women and gender non-conforming individuals — has been to narrow the scope of federal anti-discrimination enforcement in the workplace.

In education, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has been subject to years of regulatory back-and-forth that has left the statute’s protective scope unclear and unevenly enforced across jurisdictions. Because Title IX is statutory legislation rather than a constitutional mandate, its interpretation and enforcement have shifted dramatically with each change in administration. The ERA would provide a constitutional foundation for educational equity that could not be unilaterally narrowed by executive regulatory rollback.

The Originalism Threat: A Court That May Erase 50 Years of Progress

The most acute danger to women’s legal equality in 2026 is not simply the absence of the ERA. It is the combination of that absence with the ascendancy of originalist legal philosophy on the Supreme Court. Originalism — broadly, the interpretive approach that holds the Constitution means what its authors intended at the time of ratification — has become the dominant jurisprudential framework on a Court where six of nine justices are current or former members of the Federalist Society, which promotes originalist and textualist constitutional interpretation (Baker, 2023).

The implications for women are direct and severe. The originalist framework, applied rigorously, poses an existential question to women’s constitutional rights: in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, did its authors intend to prohibit sex discrimination? The historical record makes this difficult to sustain. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia stated plainly in a 2011 interview: ‘The only issue is whether [the Constitution] prohibits [sex discrimination]. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that’ (as cited in Baker, 2023, para. 8). The 2022 Dobbs majority echoed this logic in holding that abortion — a right exclusively relevant to women’s bodily autonomy — lacked the constitutional status of rights ‘deeply rooted’ in 18th-century tradition.

The 2025 Supreme Court term deepened the concern. In United States v. Skrmetti (2025), the Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, ruling that it did not constitute sex discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny because it applied to both sexes based on biological differences. In reaching this conclusion, the Court’s majority cited Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) — a long-reviled decision that had held pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination because ‘nonpregnant persons’ included both sexes — a ruling that legal scholars widely consider one of the most logically indefensible decisions in the Court’s history (Slate, 2025). The revival of Geduldig’s reasoning in Skrmetti signals a willingness to narrow the scope of constitutional sex equality protections that, according to many constitutional scholars, had appeared settled for decades.

Writing in dissent in the Dobbs decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, observed: ‘Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights. When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification, it consigns women to second-class citizenship’ (as cited in Baker, 2023, para. 5). This is not hyperbole. If the trajectory of originalist jurisprudence continues, and if intermediate scrutiny for sex-based classifications is either eliminated or substantially weakened, much of the legal progress women have won since Reed v. Reed (1971) could be vulnerable.

The ERA in Limbo: A Legal Crisis Without Resolution

The ERA’s current status is one of the most peculiar legal situations in American constitutional history. As of 2026, 38 states — the constitutionally required three-fourths — have formally ratified the ERA. On January 17, 2025, outgoing President Joseph Biden issued a formal statement declaring the ERA to be ‘the 28th Amendment and law of the land,’ noting that it had ‘cleared all necessary hurdles’ to be formally added to the Constitution (Equality Now, 2025). Days after Biden left office, that declaration was removed from the White House website (Equal Rights Amendment Organization, 2025).

The legal obstacles to formal recognition center on the ratification deadline Congress attached to the ERA’s proposing resolution in 1972 — a seven-year window, later extended to 1982, by which states were expected to ratify. Opponents argue the ERA expired when that deadline passed with only 35 ratifications. Proponents respond that Article V of the Constitution contains no provision for congressional time limits on ratification, and that Congress lacks constitutional authority to impose a deadline that does not appear in the amendment text itself (New York City Bar Association, 2025). The American Bar Association resolved in August 2024 that the ERA had been validly ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment and called for its full implementation (Equal Rights Amendment Organization, 2025).

The federal courts have thus far rejected arguments for ERA recognition. In July 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Valame v. Trump that ‘no 28th Amendment appears in the Constitution,’ concluding that the ERA had not been ratified before the 1982 deadline (Constitution Center, 2026). The case is being appealed toward the Supreme Court. A separate case, Equal Means Equal v. Trump, pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argued that requiring only men to register with the Selective Service violated the Equal Rights Amendment — with arguments heard in March 2026 (Constitution Center, 2026). In December 2024, the National Archivist formally declined to certify the ERA, citing Justice Department opinions holding it legally expired (Constitution Center, 2026). Upon taking office, President Trump removed the Archivist and named Secretary of State Marco Rubio as acting Archivist — effectively placing ERA certification in the hands of an administration philosophically opposed to it (Equal Rights Amendment Organization, 2025).

The ERA’s liminal status is thus not merely a legal question but a political one. Representative Ayanna Pressley introduced H.J. Res. 80 in the 119th Congress in March 2025, calling for congressional recognition of the ERA’s ratification notwithstanding the time limit — a recognition that, if enacted, would moot the deadline dispute (Equal Rights Amendment Organization, 2025). As of this writing, the resolution faces a difficult path in the current Congress.

The Global Comparison: American Exceptionalism in the Wrong Direction

The United States’ failure to constitutionally enshrine sex equality is not the norm among democratic nations. According to the Center for American Progress, 85% of the world’s constitutions explicitly guarantee equal rights or prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender — including constitutions written or substantially rewritten under the supervision of the United States government, such as those of Japan and Afghanistan (Center for American Progress, 2025). The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979, has been ratified by 189 countries. The United States has signed but never ratified CEDAW — making it one of only a handful of nations worldwide that have failed to do so (Equal Rights Amendment Organization, 2025).

This is not a minor diplomatic anomaly. It reflects a fundamental inconsistency in American constitutional values: a nation that has historically presented itself as a global leader in human rights and democratic governance has declined, for over a century, to formally guarantee in its founding document that women are entitled to equal treatment under law. The 28 states that have added equal rights provisions to their own constitutions have demonstrated that such a commitment is achievable and workable at the state level — providing decades of legal jurisprudence demonstrating how a federal ERA would function in practice (Equal Rights Amendment FAQ, 2025).

Public Opinion and the Democratic Deficit

The ERA’s failure cannot be attributed to public opposition. The AP-NORC poll of 2020 found that 73% of Americans favored the ERA — including 70% of men and 76% of women (AP-NORC, 2020). Among Republicans, 37% of men and 50% of women strongly favored the amendment (AP-NORC, 2020). The YIP Institute reported that an 85% supermajority of Americans across party lines supported the ERA in a 2022 poll (YIP Institute, 2024). These figures suggest the ERA’s failure to achieve formal constitutional status does not reflect the will of the American public but rather the structural features of an amendment process that makes constitutional change extremely difficult — and a political environment in which legislative priorities have repeatedly superseded the ERA’s ratification.

The democratic deficit is significant. A constitutional amendment that commands the support of three-quarters of the public, has been ratified by three-quarters of the states, and has been declared law by an outgoing president nonetheless remains legally unrecognized — because a deadline attached to its proposing resolution, and not contained in the amendment text itself, is treated as legally controlling. Whether this outcome reflects sound constitutional law or a procedural technicality being used to override democratic will is a question that the courts have thus far declined to resolve definitively.

Conclusion: The Clock Is Running Out

The United States Constitution has never been amended to explicitly guarantee women’s equality. The Equal Rights Amendment — 52 words that would close this gap — has been ratified by the required number of states and enjoys the support of a substantial majority of the American public. It remains unrecognized as law. In the meantime, the judicial philosophy that now dominates the Supreme Court is one that looks to the original intent of an 18th-century Constitution authored by men who did not regard women as legal equals, and a series of recent court decisions has demonstrated both the willingness and the capacity of the current Court to narrow statutory and constitutional protections that women have relied upon for decades.

The gender wage gap has widened for two consecutive years. Abortion rights have been eliminated in over a dozen states. EEOC workplace protections for gender-diverse employees have been narrowed by both executive order and federal court ruling. The ERA’s last clear path to recognition — congressional action — faces a hostile political environment. And the courts that might otherwise provide relief have consistently, in recent years, moved in a direction unfavorable to sex equality claims.

The argument that women’s rights are secure without the ERA has always rested on a fragile premise: that statutes enacted by Congress, regulations issued by executive agencies, and precedents established by courts will remain durable regardless of political shifts. The record of the past several years has dismantled that premise. Rights that rest on legislation can be repealed. Rights that rest on executive orders can be reversed. Rights that rest on precedent can be overturned. Only rights embedded in the Constitution itself are genuinely foundational — resistant to the tides of electoral politics and judicial temperament.

The ERA is not a partisan document. Its language is terse, neutral, and limited: equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. It does not mandate any particular policy outcome. It does not compel abortion or prohibit protective legislation for women. It does the same thing race-specific constitutional provisions do for racial equality: it establishes a constitutional floor below which government action cannot go. That floor does not exist for American women today. Until it does, the rights they exercise are not constitutional rights. They are permissions — granted and revocable by whoever holds political power.

A century of promises is not the same as a century of protection. The clock is running out.

References

←
→

Leave a Reply

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading