Attorney Newshubb
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us
No Result
View All Result
Attorney Newshubb
No Result
View All Result
Home Law News

Backers of Equal Rights Amendment lose mandamus bid in DC Circuit

admin by admin
March 4, 2023
in Law News


  1. Home
  2. Daily News
  3. Backers of Equal Rights Amendment lose mandamus…

Constitutional Law

Backers of Equal Rights Amendment lose mandamus bid in DC Circuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 1, 2023, 9:31 am CST

Pro-Equal Rights Amendment demonstrators stand by their banner in Chicago’s Grant Park in May 1978. They were waiting for the arrival of then-President Jimmy Carter at a hotel across the street. Photo by LAB/The Associated Press.

The states of Illinois and Nevada lost their bid to make the Equal Rights Amendment part of the Constitution on Tuesday, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that they did not satisfy the high threshold needed to obtain a writ of mandamus.

The D.C. Circuit said the two states failed to show that they had a “clear and indisputable right” to compel the U.S. archivist to certify and publish the ERA as part of the Constitution.

Bloomberg Law has coverage noted by How Appealing, which linked to the Feb. 28 opinion.

The states had contended that the ERA was part of the Constitution because it had been ratified by 38 states as called for in the Constitution. But ratification by the last three of the 38 states didn’t happen by a 1979 deadline set by Congress that was extended to 1982.

In 2018, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the ERA, followed by Illinois and Virginia. When Virginia urged the archivist to certify and publish the amendment, the archivist asked the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel for an opinion on the legal status of the ERA.

The Office of Legal Counsel said in a January 2020 opinion the ERA can’t be ratified because of the missed deadline. The opinion said Congress couldn’t extend the deadline, but it could restart the whole process by again proposing the amendment. In January 2022, the office said the prior opinion doesn’t prevent Congress from taking further action regarding ratification because the issue will ultimately be decided by the courts and Congress.

The D.C. Circuit discussed prior U.S. Supreme Court cases supporting the view that Congress has the power to set a ratification deadline.

“The states have not clearly and indisputably shown that the archivist had a duty to certify and publish the ERA or that Congress lacked the authority to place a time limit in the proposing clause of the ERA,” the appeals court said in an opinion by Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

One of the judges on the panel is J. Michelle Childs, who was on President Joe Biden’s short list for a Supreme Court nomination in 2022. After the nomination went to now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden nominated Childs to the D.C. Circuit.

The third panel member, Judge Neomi Rao, is an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

The ERA provides that: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

The amendment also says Congress has the authority to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.

Republican Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall called the D.C. Circuit’s decision “a significant victory for the rule of law” in a press release.

Alabama was one of five states that intervened in the litigation to oppose ratification of the amendment.

Linda Coberly, who chairs the ERA Coalition’s legal task force, told Bloomberg Law that the decision “does not resolve whether the time limit is effective or enforceable. What it does is kick the issue back to Congress.”

Coberly said the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing Tuesday to discuss a resolution that removes the time limit and recognizes the amendment as valid.





Source link

Tags: ABA JournalConstitutional LawD.C. Circuit CourtFederal GovernmentGovernmentIllinoislawlegal newsLitigation ManagementNevadaPublic InterestRule of LawStatesTrials & LitigationU.S. Supreme CourtVirginia
Previous Post

Citing Lack of Evidence, 8th Circ. Tosses Radiologic Tech’s Employment Claims

Next Post

Student loan relief cases will have lasting effects whatever Supreme Court decides

Next Post

Student loan relief cases will have lasting effects whatever Supreme Court decides

Recommended

Law firm accused of 856 insurer misrepresentations is suspended from practice in federal district court

March 17, 2023

Behzad Malek-Madani Returns to Difede Ramsdell Bender

March 5, 2023

Don't miss it

Law News

Justices appear sympathetic to Jack Daniel’s in trademark parody dispute

March 23, 2023
Law News

To Tell Or Not To Tell: That Is The Question

March 23, 2023
Law News

How Casetext utilized the latest GPT technology to create an AI legal assistant

March 22, 2023
Law News

Trump motion seeks to block evidence from Georgia special purpose grand jury, disqualify district attorney

March 22, 2023
Attorney News

Generational Friction | Bridging the Generation Gap in Law Firms

March 22, 2023
Attorney News

Growing Trend of Data Sharing Litigation: Federal Judge OKs ‘Subscriber’s’ VPPA Suit Against PBS

March 22, 2023

© 2022 Attorneys News Hubb All rights reserved.

Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement unless specified. By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Navigate Site

  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us

Newsletter Sign Up

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Attorney News
  • Law News
  • Attorneys Legal Law News
  • Contact us

© 2022 Attorneys News Hubb All rights reserved.