Ginsburg Urges 'New Beginning' for Equal Rights Amendment
Virginia, Illinois and Nevada have gone to court to assert that the amendment, approved by Congress in 1972, has, in fact, been ratified.
February 11, 2020 at 10:17 AM
5 minute read
The campaign to include the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. Constitution should "start over," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Monday.
"I would like to see a new beginning," Ginsburg said at an American Bar Association event celebrating the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which established that the right to vote could not be denied "on account of sex."
Ginsburg's statement could complicate the new effort to revive the ERA in the wake of Virginia's recent ratification of the amendment, the 38th state to do so. Virginia, Illinois and Nevada have gone to court to assert that the amendment, approved by Congress in 1972, has, in fact, been ratified, even though the Justice Department claims that the deadline for ratification has come and gone. Several other federal courts are also weighing the status of the amendment.
"There's too much controversy about latecomers [such as] Virginia long after the deadline passed," Ginsburg said at the event, which took place at Georgetown University Law Center. "Plus, a number of states have withdrawn their ratification. So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, 'We've changed our minds?'"
Ginsburg's long history and preeminence on the issue of women's rights and the ERA may make her viewpoint difficult to ignore as the revival effort continues. Her comments also quickly drew criticism for setting forth her opinion on the matter as litigation, which could reach the Supreme Court, is pending.
"There is little chance ERA supporters would file a motion to recuse Justice Ginsburg. Such a move would be an apostasy," constitutional scholar Josh Blackman wrote at The Volokh Conspiracy Monday night. "But I don't know how RBG could approach this case neutrally."
During the event Monday, Ginsburg insisted that the ERA is needed, even though protection for women's rights have been established in other ways.
"I've been asked many times, 'Well, haven't you, through the vehicle of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, gotten to about the same place where you would be with the ERA?' And my answer is, 'Not quite,'" Ginsburg said. "Every constitution in the world, written since the year 1950, even Afghanistan, has the equivalent of an equal rights amendment, and we don't."
She added, "It should be right up there with free speech, freedom of religion, and discrimination based on race or national origin. So I think, you know how the Constitution says, 'We the people, in order to form a more perfect union,' the union will be more perfect when that simple statement that men and women are persons of equal citizenship stature is part of our fundamental instrument of government. So even if the argument is it's largely symbolic, it is a very important symbol."
Ginsburg also seemed to acknowledge that achieving consensus on this and other issues may be difficult. "Yes, there are things that make us all worry, like a dysfunctional Congress, the parties so sharply divided," she said. "I am hopeful that there will be leaders on both sides of the aisle who will say it's time to get together and work for the good of the country. That is my hope and I would be content if I could see it happen in my lifetime."
Ginsburg's comments came in a dialogue with Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who chairs the association's commission celebrating the 19th Amendment's anniversary.
ABA President Judy Perry Martinez also spoke, warning that even though voting rights cannot be denied because of race or sex, "many voters still face ballot restrictions. New constructs evolved, some by misguided if not malignant design, to strip away the right to vote from otherwise eligible persons. Other challenges continue today, including accessibility to polling places for people with disabilities."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
8th Circuit Appeal Could Weaken Key Defense in Disability Bias Cases, Employment Lawyers Say
Michael Cohen Loses Bid for Supreme Court Review of Civil Rights Lawsuit
ACLU's Strangio Will Become First Openly Trans Attorney to Argue at Supreme Court
Trending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250