The Equal Rights Amendment After Bostock: A Means to Expand Constitutional Protections for Sexual Minorities
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was presumed dead in
the 1980s after a long battle for ratification failed, but it has
recently returned to public discourse with the latest wave of
feminist influence in the United States. The ERA declares that
equal rights under the law cannot be denied on account of sex.
In the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton
County, the Court interpreted similar language from Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which also prohibits sex
discrimination. In that case, the Court interpreted the statutory
prohibition on sex discrimination to include discrimination
against sexual minorities for the first time. If the ERA is
adopted in its present form, it should be interpreted in
accordance with the Court’s decision in Bostock to protect
sexual minorities as well as women.
While many scholars have answered constitutional questions
regarding the ERA and articulated the ongoing need for its
incorporation into the U.S. Constitution, none has had the
opportunity to analyze its language in light of the landmark
Bostock opinion. This Note provides that evaluation,
explaining why Bostock and other relevant jurisprudence
support an all-encompassing interpretation of the ERA, should
it be officially adopted.
Hogan, Courtney M.
"The Equal Rights Amendment After Bostock: A Means to Expand Constitutional Protections for Sexual Minorities,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 55:
3, Article 11.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol55/iss3/11