iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

NEW SUIT ATTACKS MALE-ONLY DRAFT BASED ON EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Heroica Foundation/Equal Means Equal (EME) and member Sabrina Hamdan filed a federal class-action suit on 9-28-26, challenging the male-only draft law under the Equal Rights Amendment, which they assert is in the Constitution. A 🧵

101 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

101 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

12) could ultimately become the vehicle through which the Supreme Court determines whether women can be required to register for Selective Service or subjected to a future draft—and under what constitutional standard. We do not want a men’s-rights case to determine women’s constitutional fate."

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

11) In an email on the filing of the new case, EME President Kamala Lopez said, "The [Supreme] Court itself has already signaled that it may be willing to reconsider Rostker v. Goldberg, the 1981 decision upholding male-only registration. That means a case brought by a men’s-rights organization

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

10) The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting "all women between the ages of 18 and 26 in the United States who are eligible for Selective Service registration but are excluded because of sex."

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

9) The new lawsuit in due course may provide an opportunity for yet another court of appeals (the Seventh) to find that the ERA is not part of the Constitution.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

8) Another ERA-based challenge to the male-only draft law (Equal Means Equal v. Trump), also brought by Equal Means Equal, is currently pending before the First Circuit, on which we have reported in detail.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

7) supporting their ERA claim, plaintiffs cite as authorities a House joint resolution introduced in 2023 but not acted on, a 2024 resolution adopted by the ABA House of Delegates, 2025 statements by President Biden and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and an article by Laurence Tribe & Kathleen Sullivan.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

6) Instead, at least 12 federal judges have rejected attacks on the validity of the ERA's ratification deadline and have rejected claims that the ERA is part of the Constitution, including unanimous panels of the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. Lacking even a dissent from a federal judge

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

5) The complaint cites no federal court decision recognizing the ERA as part of the Constitution. That is because there are no such decisions.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

4) Although the complaint also makes a Fifth Amendment claim, it rests that claim on the purported ratification of the ERA: "The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause must be interpreted consistently with the ERA."

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

3) The plaintiffs acknowledge that the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Rostker v. Goldberg rejected a constitutional challenge to the male-only draft law, but they argue that "Rostker's constitutional analysis cannot remain controlling after ratification of the ERA..."

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

2) The lawsuit is styled Heroica Foundation v. Brown (Case No. 1:26-cv-11777), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Since 2020, a dozen federal judges (most appointed by Democrats) have rejected claims that the ERA was ratified; there have been no dissents. Unanimous panels of D.C. & 9th Circuits upheld the deadline; the 1st Circuit will soon. "Publication" would change this reality not a bit. RBG: Start over.

000 0

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

The status of the ERA is not "heavily debated" among federal judges who have considered it. Since 2020, 12 federal judges have rejected claims that the ERA was ratified; there have been no dissents. Most were appointed by Democratic presidents. Includes unanimous panels of DC and 9th Circuits.

120 2

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Yes. You wrote earlier, "no other amendment [other than the ERA] ever had an "expiration date," but now you agree that EVERY proposed constitutional amendment for the last 109 years has had an expiration date (ratification deadline), except the 17th. When Congress sets a deadline it is immutable.

200 2

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

"No other amendment ever had an 'expiration date'" is incorrect. EVERY constitutional amendment submitted to the states by Congress since 1917 has contained a ratification deadline, except the 19th Amendment in 1919. Unanimous panels of the DC Circuit and 9th Circuit have upheld the ERA's deadline.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

Both the Trump and Biden Justice Departments successfully defended ERA's non-publication in federal courts. Unanimous panels of the D.C. Circuit & Ninth Circuit have REJECTED claims that the deadline was nonbinding and the ERA was ratified. Publication by an Archivist wouldn't magically make it so.

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

8) The DOJ brief also urges the First Circuit to uphold the district court ruling that Equal Mean Equal's claim that the male-draft registration requirement violates Fifth Amendment protections against sex discrimination is foreclosed by an on-point Supreme Court ruling, Rostker v. Goldberg (1981).

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

7) In Equal Means Equal v. Trump, we expect that oral argument will be granted, as Equal Means Equal has requested; it perhaps would scheduled for December, 2026.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

6) The brief highlights that "both courts of appeals to address similar contentions [that the ERA had been ratified] have rejected them," citing unanimous rulings in the D.C. Circuit (Illinois v. Ferriero, 2023) and Ninth Circuit (Valame v. Trump, 2025).

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

5) Moreover, the brief argues, the Supreme Court "necessarily decided" that the ERA had failed of adoption when it decreed in 1982 that a district court ruling regarding the status of the ERA (in Idaho v. Freeman) was moot.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

4) The Supreme Court has clearly established the power of Congress to set ratification deadlines, which might be found "either in the proposed amendment or in the resolution of submission," and Congress did so when it approved the ERA resolution with its 7-year deadline in 1972, the brief asserts.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

3) The DOJ brief argues that "States vote to ratify proposed amendments under the conditions--including mode of ratification and timing--established in the proposing clause, which are committed by Article V to Congress."

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

2) The brief was filed on September 28, 2026, in Equal Means Equal v. Trump (No. 26-1596), which is an appeal of the dismissal of both ERA-based and Fifth Amendment claims against the male-only draft registration law, handed down by U.S. District Judge William G. Young of Massachusetts.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TELLS FIRST CIRCUIT A 🧵 On 9-28-26, the Department of Justice filed a 31-page brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that the Equal Rights Amendment is not part of the Constitution.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 19/09/2026

John Nichols here spreads the urban legend that Congress or an Archivist can put the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. The Biden DOJ repudiated both claims in court. Unmentioned: Unanimous panels of D.C. and 9th Circuits have rejected legal challenges to the ERA ratification deadline.

000 0

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 19/09/2026

John Nichols spreads urban legend that Congress or Archivist can put the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. The Biden DOJ repudiated both claims in court. Unanimous panels of D.C. and 9th Circuits have rejected legal challenges to the ERA ratification deadline. @nicholsuprising.bsky.social

000 0

Reposted by ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

TWO DEFEATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (1983, 2026) A 🧵 On Sept. 2, 2026, the House of Representatives voted down HJRes 1, a proposed constitutional amendment to fix the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at 9 justices. On Nov. 15, 1983, the House defeated another HJRes 1: The Equal Rights Amendment.

111 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

111 1

Reposted by ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

Gloria Steinem (1934-2026), rest in peace. Steinem died on September 2 at the age of 92. The video clip, in which she discussed the Equal Rights Amendment, is from an appearance on Oprah, January 14, 1986.

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

5) ERA sponsors and advocacy groups especially feared adoption of an "abortion-neutralization amendment" (providing that the ERA would neither support nor deny abortion rights). Primarily because of that exclusion, 14 co-sponsors voted against suspension, resulting in the defeat of the proposal.

010 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

4) procedure, which provides an up-or-down vote after limited debate, with no amendments permitted. In 1983 the suspension procedure was clearly employed to shut out certain amendments to the ERA that were deemed likely to pass (only a majority vote is required to amend a joint resolution).

110 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

3) To the shock of the majority Democratic leadership, the 278-147 tally fell six votes short of the two-thirds required. It was the last time that either chamber of Congress voted on re-submitting an ERA to the states. Both in 1983 and in 2026, the House employed the "suspension of the rules"

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

2) The vote on the 9-justice measure was 212-206, 67 votes short of the two-thirds margin required. The 1983 vote was on an attempt to start over with the ERA, after the ERA that had been approved by Congress in 1972 had expired unratified (as nobody disputed at the time).

100 1

Reposted by ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 31/08/2026

We now wait with bated breath to see whether the American Bar Association will show the courage of its purported convictions, by filing an amicus brief at the First Circuit in support of the Equal Means Equal claim that the Equal Rights Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution. 🤔 @americanbar.org

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 31/08/2026

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 30/08/2026

In EQUAL MEANS EQUAL V. TRUMP, challenging male-only draft registration, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, the plaintiffs on Aug. 28 requested oral argument, partly based on claim "the Equal Rights Amendment is now the 28th Amendment." DC & 9th Circuits have rejected this claim.

000 0

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

5) When we said, "The Biden Justice Dept won every case claiming the ERA was ratified," of course we meant in every case the judges rejected claims the ERA was ratified (because the deadline was valid). At least a dozen federal judges have rejected ERA ratification claims since 2020; no dissents.

000 0

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

4) But if a split ever develops in the lower courts over whether Equal Rights Amendment is part of the Constitution (doubtful), it is surely the U.S. Supreme Court that will settle the matter. Already, unanimous panels of the D.C. and Ninth Circuits have rejected claims that the ERA was ratified.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

3) Any congressional "recognition" of a long-expired constitutional amendment proposal would generate polemical claims, but such action would have no legal weight, as the Biden Justice Department told the D.C. Circuit in 2022. The Biden Justice Dept. won every case claiming the ERA was ratified.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

2) (Baker, continued): "Leading constitutional scholars argue the Senate filibuster does not apply to constitutional amendments, and the president and Supreme Court have no role in constitutional amendments." Prof. Baker has it backwards.

100 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

SCOTUS HAS "NO ROLE IN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS"? A 🧵 @carrienbaker.bsky.social writes on Ms., "With Nov. elections on the horizon, and the potential for pro-ERA candidates to win majorities in both chambers, final recognition of the 28th Amendment is within reach." msmagazine.com/2026/08/25/e...

msmagazine.com

After Dobbs, the ERA Offers a New Path to Abortion Rights

State-level ERAs are emerging as powerful tools to protect abortion access, pregnancy justice and women’s equality after Dobbs.

111 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 19/08/2026

27) We erred in stating in our reply no. (26) above that the government's brief was due by Aug. 24, 2026; it seems that we should have calculated it as Sept. 2. But the later court order shown below had the effect of resetting the deadline for the government's brief; it is now on or about Sept. 17.

000 0

Reposted by ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 17/08/2026

The claim that Equal Rights Amendment has met the "threshold for ratification" has been rejected by a least a dozen federal judges, including unanimous panels of the D.C. and 9th Circuits. The Biden Admin. Justice Dept said that a post hoc resolution by Congress would be constitutionally irrelevant.

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 17/08/2026

001 1

ERA_No_Shortcuts @eranoshortcuts.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

The claim that Equal Rights Amendment has met the "threshold for ratification" has been rejected by a least a dozen federal judges, including unanimous panels of the D.C. and 9th Circuits. The Biden Adm. Justice Dept said that a post hoc resolution by Congress would be constitutionally irrelevant.

000 0