On Monday, September 7th, Equal Means Equal and two other plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that as women denied equality under law they have the right to sue to force the government to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The appeal reiterated the points in the lawsuit originally filed in January in U.S. District Court in Boston, detailing how congressionally imposed deadlines for states to ratify the ERA are unconstitutional, and calling on the court to compel the Archivist of the United States to officially record ERA as the 28th amendment to the Constitution.
The appeal contends the lower court erred when it ruled Equal Means Equal, the Yellow Roses and Katherine Weitbrecht did not have standing to sue to force the Archivist of the United States to certify all 38 states have ratified the ERA. The requisite number of states ratified the amendment Jan. 27, 2020 when Virginia passed the measure.
“Petitioners adequately demonstrated concrete injury because respondent’s refusal to publish the ERA, followed by the issuance of an official statement that the ERA is not valid, caused injury to the ERA’s continued vitality,” the appeal stated. “The District Court failed to acknowledge the way respondent’s actions injured the ERA’s continued vitality.”
Equal Means Equal President Kamala Lopez took issue with the court questioning the standing of the three plaintiffs, an individual and two organizations representing women deeply affected by a lack of protections that ERA would remedy if added to the Constitution.