US Federal Senate Bill SJR38

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/25/25
• Refer: 3/25/25

Caption

A joint resolution establishing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Summary

S.J. Res. 38 is a joint resolution declaring that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is valid and part of the U.S. Constitution, despite any time limit contained in the original 1972 proposing resolution. The measure states that the amendment proposed in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress should be treated as having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, and therefore effective for all constitutional purposes. In practical terms, the resolution attempts to remove the legal barrier created by the ERA’s ratification deadline and to affirm the amendment’s constitutional status by congressional declaration. If adopted, it would affect federal constitutional interpretation rather than directly amend state statutes, but it would have implications for state ratification records and for any future litigation over whether the ERA has been properly ratified.

Impact

The bill would not itself rewrite state laws, but it would seek to alter the legal status of the Equal Rights Amendment at the federal constitutional level by declaring the amendment ratified notwithstanding the original deadline. Its effect would be to recognize the ERA as part of the Constitution and potentially influence how courts, states, and federal agencies treat sex-based equality claims and ratification disputes. The measure is especially relevant to state legislatures that previously ratified the ERA and to states that have debated rescission or the validity of late ratifications.

Sentiment

The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the subject matter and sponsorship by Senators Murkowski and Hirono, the resolution appears to be presented in support of ERA ratification and constitutional equality for women and other protected classes. Because there is no hearing or vote history in the provided materials, the broader sentiment in committee or on the floor cannot be determined from the record here.

Contention

The central point of contention is whether Congress can declare the ERA ratified despite the original time limit and whether the amendment can be treated as valid after the deadline expired. Supporters are likely to argue that the deadline should not prevent constitutional recognition of the ERA, while opponents would likely contend that the ratification process is closed and that Congress cannot retroactively validate an expired amendment. Additional disputes may involve the legal effect of prior state ratifications, possible rescissions by some states, and the scope of any constitutional changes the ERA would produce.