The Equal Rights Amendment: A Century-Long Struggle for Constitutional Gender Equality

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) stands as one of the most enduring and contentious proposals in American constitutional history. First introduced in 1923, its journey through the political and legal landscape reveals the deep and persistent struggle for gender equality in the United States. More than a simple legal text, the ERA has served as a rallying point for generations of activists, a mirror reflecting societal attitudes toward women's roles, and a barometer of the nation's commitment to fundamental fairness. Understanding the significance of the ERA throughout history is essential for grasping the evolution of gender equality and the unfinished work that remains.

Foundations of the Equal Rights Amendment

The roots of the ERA lie in the early 20th-century women's rights movement, which had recently achieved a monumental victory with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, granting women the right to vote. Yet suffragists quickly realized that the right to vote alone would not dismantle the vast system of legal and social discrimination that restricted women's lives. Alice Paul, a veteran of the British suffrage movement and a founder of the National Woman's Party, spearheaded the effort to draft an amendment that would guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of sex.

The original text, introduced in Congress in 1923, was strikingly direct: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” This simple yet radical statement challenged every law, policy, and practice that treated men and women differently. It proposed nothing less than a constitutional reset of gender relations in America.

Early Opposition and Internal Tensions

From the outset, the ERA faced strong opposition—not only from anti-feminist forces but also from within the women's rights movement itself. Many progressive and labor activists feared that the amendment would invalidate protective labor laws that had been fought for during the Progressive Era. These laws limited women's working hours, prohibited night work, and set minimum wage standards specifically for women. Proponents of these protections argued that the ERA would leave women vulnerable to exploitation in a system still dominated by male power. This split between “equal rights” feminists and “social feminists” would haunt the ERA for decades.

The Mid-Century Campaign: A Slow Burn

For nearly fifty years after its introduction, the ERA languished in congressional committees. It was reintroduced every session, but the political climate was not ripe for a constitutional revolution in gender relations. The Great Depression, World War II, and the postwar emphasis on domesticity kept the amendment on the legislative back burner. Nonetheless, the National Woman's Party continued to lobby, and a small but dedicated cadre of activists kept the dream of an ERA alive.

The publication of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique in 1963 and the founding of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 injected new energy into the movement. NOW made the ERA one of its central demands, and a new wave of activism began to build. The women's liberation movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s created a political environment far more receptive to the idea of constitutional equality.

The Miracle of 1972: Congressional Passage

In March 1972, both houses of Congress approved the ERA with overwhelming bipartisan majorities—354 to 23 in the House and 84 to 8 in the Senate. The amendment then went to the states for ratification, with a seven-year deadline set by Congress. At first, ratification moved swiftly. Within a year, 30 of the necessary 38 states had voted yes. Optimism was high; many predicted the ERA would become the 27th Amendment by 1975. However, a powerful counter-mobilization was already forming.

The Anti-ERA Movement: Opposition and Resistance

The campaign against the ERA was led by Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative activist who framed the amendment as a threat to traditional family values, women's privileges (such as alimony and exemption from the draft), and the sanctity of the home. Her organization, Stop ERA, argued that the amendment would harm women by forcing them into the workforce, eliminating protections in divorce and custody, and requiring women to serve in combat roles.

Key Arguments of the Opposition

  • Loss of protective laws: Opponents claimed the ERA would nullify laws that provided special protections for women in the workplace, such as rest breaks and maximum hour limitations.
  • Military service: The prospect of women being subject to conscription and combat duty was a powerful scare tactic that resonated in the Cold War era.
  • Family structure: Many feared the ERA would destabilize traditional gender roles, leading to unisex bathrooms, same-sex marriage (a precursor to later debates), and state sponsorship of abortion.
  • State's rights: Some opponents argued the ERA represented federal overreach, infringing on the rights of states to regulate domestic relations.

The Stop ERA movement proved remarkably effective. After 1973, the pace of ratifications slowed dramatically. States began to rescind or defeat the amendment. By the original deadline of March 22, 1979, only 35 states had ratified—three short of the required three-quarters majority. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no additional states ratified, and the ERA officially fell short.

Key Figures Who Shaped the ERA Movement

Understanding the ERA requires recognizing the individuals who championed or opposed it, as they shaped both the substance and the strategy of this long campaign.

Alice Paul (1885–1977)

The architect of the ERA, Alice Paul was a militant suffragist who learned direct-action tactics from the British movement. After the 19th Amendment passed, she turned her focus to constitutional equality. She wrote the original ERA language in 1923 and pressed for its adoption until her death in 1977.

Phyllis Schlafly (1924–2016)

The most effective opponent of the ERA, Schlafly organized a grassroots conservative movement that defeated the amendment at the state level. She argued that the ERA would remove legal benefits and protections that women already enjoyed, and her message resonated with millions of women who feared change.

Gloria Steinem (b. 1934)

A leading feminist voice of the 1970s, Steinem testified before Congress in support of the ERA, wrote extensively about its necessity, and helped mobilize a broad coalition of supporters. Her work in founding Ms. Magazine provided a platform for feminist ideas.

Betty Friedan (1921–2006)

Author of The Feminine Mystique and co-founder of NOW, Friedan was instrumental in making the ERA a central goal of the mainstream feminist movement. She helped push the amendment through Congress in 1972.

Although the ERA failed to reach the ratification threshold, its influence on American law and society has been substantial. The fight for the ERA spurred a wave of state-level equal rights amendments; twenty-two states now have their own ERAs incorporated into their constitutions. Moreover, the campaign educated the public about gender discrimination and laid the groundwork for later legal advances.

Impact on Supreme Court Jurisprudence

The battle for the ERA created a political climate that influenced the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In landmark cases such as Reed v. Reed (1971) and Craig v. Boren (1976), the Court began to strike down laws that discriminated based on sex, applying what became known as intermediate scrutiny. While the ERA would have mandated strict scrutiny—the highest level of judicial review—this shift in constitutional interpretation still represented a major advance in the legal status of women.

The Reed v. Reed decision was the first time the Supreme Court used the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate a law that discriminated against women. And Craig v. Boren established the standard that sex-based classifications must be “substantially related” to important government objectives. These cases were directly animated by the ERA’s promise of full equality.

The Revival: A New Century, New Momentum

For nearly two decades after 1982, the ERA was considered a dead issue. But beginning in the 2010s, a new generation of activists revived the campaign. The #MeToo movement, the increased visibility of women in politics, and growing awareness of persistent wage gaps and discrimination all contributed to renewed interest in the ERA.

The Nevada and Illinois Ratifications

In 2017, Nevada became the first state to ratify the ERA after the 1982 deadline. Illinois followed in 2018. Then in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify, meeting the three-quarters threshold originally specified by Congress. However, the ratifications came decades after the deadline, raising complex legal questions about the amendment’s validity.

Following Virginia’s ratification, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that the ERA’s deadline had expired and that the amendment could not be revived without new congressional action. The House of Representatives passed a resolution in 2021 to remove the deadline, but the Senate has not taken it up. Meanwhile, lawsuits have been filed seeking to compel the Archivist of the United States to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution.

In 2023, a federal district court dismissed one such lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the deadline was valid. That decision is currently on appeal. The status of the ERA remains one of the most hotly debated constitutional questions in America today. For current developments, see the Equal Rights Amendment website for ongoing updates.

The Importance of the ERA in Contemporary Society

Why does the ERA matter today, even if it has not yet been formally added to the Constitution? The answer lies in the gap between the legal protections currently available and the promise of genuine equality.

Addressing Persistent Discrimination

While landmark legislation such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 have prohibited many forms of sex discrimination, these laws can be amended or repealed by a simple majority vote in Congress. A constitutional amendment, by contrast, provides a permanent and supreme guarantee. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never held that sex is a suspect classification requiring the highest level of judicial scrutiny, as race and religion do. The ERA would change that, ensuring that any law that treats men and women differently must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve it.

New Frontiers: Gender Identity and the ERA

The ERA’s language prohibiting discrimination “on account of sex” has been interpreted by many legal scholars and activists to encompass discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination protects LGBTQ+ workers, has strengthened this argument. If the ERA becomes part of the Constitution, it could provide a powerful tool for ensuring legal protections for transgender individuals, who face high rates of violence and discrimination.

Gender-Based Violence and the ERA

The ERA would also strengthen the legal framework for combating gender-based violence. Courts have sometimes struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act as exceeding Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. A clear constitutional guarantee of sex equality would give Congress broader powers to legislate against domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Conclusion: The Unfinished Revolution

The Equal Rights Amendment is far more than a relic of past struggles. It is a living document that embodies the ongoing American conversation about equality. Its journey—from its daring introduction in 1923, through the near success of the 1970s, the heartbreaking defeat in 1982, and the recent revival efforts—reflects the enduring power of the idea that the law should treat every person with equal dignity and respect.

Whether the ERA will ultimately enter the Constitution remains uncertain, but its significance transcends that outcome. It has educated millions about the realities of sex discrimination, inspired countless activists to demand change, and pushed the legal system to recognize equality as a core constitutional value. For those who continue to believe that the Constitution should explicitly guarantee that rights are not denied on account of sex, the ERA remains a goal worth fighting for.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once noted, the ERA is not just about women—it is about creating a Constitution that truly belongs to everyone. Its story is a testament to the power of persistence, the importance of organized resistance, and the unending work required to build a more just society. The struggle for the Equal Rights Amendment continues, and with it, the hope that the nation will one day fulfill its founding promise of equality for all.