Thread by @ERANoShortcuts

1/16) BREAKING NEWS: A major development in the main ERA ratification case, VIRGINIA v. FERRIERO, filed in Washington, D.C. Federal District Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama appointee) has GRANTED the motion of Alabama (+LA,NE,SD,TN) to intervene in the case --
#ERA
#ERANow

2/16) i.e, become parties themselves. This is the case in which Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada sued the Archivist, arguing that the 1972 ERA has already been ratified, and that the ratification deadline imposed by Congress was unconstitutional.
#ERA2020
#ERAYes

3/16) The judge's order, entered over opposition from VA, IL, NV, is a big win for ERA skeptics. It substantially increases the likelihood that major legal issues surrounding the viability of the 1972 ERA (e.g., whether the 1972 ERA in fact died decades ago,

4/16) beyond any congressional or judicial power of revival) will be decided by the federal courts, and ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court -- rather than sidestepped, leaving the door open for political sleight-of-hand by pro-ERA officeholders somewhere down the road.

5/16) In his memorandum opinion issued 6-12-20, Judge Contreras said the 5 anti-ERA states had a RIGHT to intervene,in part because they have interests and will raise arguments beyond those asserted by the Archivist/Justice Dept., including the validity of rescissions (NE,TN,&SD

6/16) were among 5 rescinding states). Contreras notes that in May 7 motion, the Archivist "does appear to be content with a 'procedural victory'... and he does not raise all of Defendants' [the anti-ERA states'] proposed defenses."
#EqualRightsAmendment
#RatifyERA
#MrsAmerica

7/16) Having the 5 anti-ERA states now as actual parties means that officers of the federal Executive Branch, now or in the future, will not have sole power to determine whether or when to concede, appeal, or otherwise determine the position of the anti-ERA side.

8/16) The intervening anti-ERA states now have power to appeal adverse rulings on their own, should that become necessary, even without support from the federal government.
@McCormackJohn
@RameshPonnuru

9/16) Judge Contreras wrote the question of whether ERA has been ratified affects ALL states: "All states face a form of threatened 'injury': they will have to review their laws...and decide whether to maintain certain policies and programs in the face of new litigation risks."

10/16) A key quote from the judge's memorandum opinion: "Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, all states would seem to have a more general procedural interest in participating in the federal system under a validly adopted (or rejected) superior rule." [p. 6]

11/16) Moreover, Contreras wrote, if not allowed to intervene now,"It is unclear whether Movants [the 5 anti-ERA states] would be able to bring a subsequent lawsuit to 'un-publish' or 'de-ratify' the amendment" (should ERA be declared ratified by some authority at a later date).

12/16) In a companion order, Judge Contreras "accepted as filed" Alabama's 17-page motion summarizing legal arguments, linked here:
alabamaag.gov/Documents/news…

13/16) Alabama is being represented in the litigation by the firm of Consovoy McCarthy. William Consovoy is the subject of a profile in the June 15 issue of the New York Times, which mentions the ERA litigation, although only in passing.

nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/…

14/16) Note: An earlier lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts by a group called Equal Means Equal, also argues that the ERA is already ratified and that the congressional deadline was unconstitutional. But that lawsuit faces substantial standing hurdles. @WMurphyLaw

15/16) We do our best to address sincere questions about the legal issues at stake, and illuminate the "true history," from an "ERA skeptical" perspective. Such questions can be submitted by Direct Message, or to a Gmail account with the same name as this Twitter account.

16/16) Also worth reminding: Some of the key legal positions being advanced by the anti-ERA side in these cases-- the binding nature of the congressional ratification deadline, and the efficacy of rescissions--are difficult to distinguish from opinions voiced by Justice Ginsburg.