[LWVNM Action] Equal Rights Amendment is being argued 9/15/2025 in Boston Federal Court: Equal Means Equal v. Trump

Thu Sep 11 11:23:45 MDT 2025

Neither LWV nor AAUW have signed on as amici, but some NOW chapters have.
Important case for equal rights!

Meredith Ross Machen
505-577-6337
Meredith.machen at gmail.com

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: SM Ramos <smrcmd0001 at outlook.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Fw: Attention: the Equal Rights Amendment is being argued
9/15/2025 in Boston Federal Court: Equal Means Equal v. Trump
To: camanadog1 <camanadog1 at gmail.com>, goanna_2001 <goanna_2001 at yahoo.com>,
infolink <infolink at bestweb.net>, joankrohn <joankrohn at gmail.com>,
julicurtis <julicurtis at gmail.com>, kacleaver <kacleaver at gmail.com>,
koobjulie <koobjulie at yahoo.com>, newmexdana <newmexdana at hotmail.com>,
patped6 <patped6 at yahoo.com>, rwlangford <rwlangford at comcast.net>,
socialjustice <socialjustice at sftbs.org>, votegeraldinesalazar <
votegeraldinesalazar at gmail.com>, meredith.machen at gmail.com <
meredith.machen at gmail.com>, Janet Willi <jwilli52 at hotmail.com>, JUDY
KOWALSKI <judy_520 at msn.com>, Cecile Lipworth <cecile at we-ripple.com>
CC: Hari Sheppeard <hsheppeard at gmail.com>, Sandra Perea <
sp-wonderwoman at comcast.net>

*"To date, most ERA supporting groups are unaware of this momentous
litigation or have remained uncommitted. Today is the opportunity to lend
us your expressed support and go public by supporting the Equal Means Equal
v. Trump
<https://equalmeansequal.org/equal-means-equal-files-historic-womens-rights-lawsuit-against-donald-j-trump/>
efforts
to advance recognition of the ERA and its attendant demand of strict
scrutiny for all. We are asking that you write back to us with your
expressed interest and support of Equal Means Equal v. Trump
<https://clearinghouse.net/case/46338/>. That would mean everything for the
ERA struggle."*

*See below*

 Sylvia

------------------------------
*From:* Eileen Murphy <eafmurphy at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2025 7:59 AM
*To:* Bettina Hager <bhager at eracoalition.org>; Jennifer Tucker <
jtucker at eracoalition.org>; Zakiya Thomas <zthomas at eracoalition.org>;
vochoa at eracoalition.org <vochoa at eracoalition.org>; Eileen Murphy <
eafmurphy at gmail.com>
*Subject:* Fwd: Attention: the Equal Rights Amendment is being argued
9/15/2025 in Boston Federal Court: Equal Means Equal v. Trump

Dear ERA Advocates and Allies:

We want to bring to your attention the only -- and currently most important
-- imminent impending "act in town" regarding the unpublished ratified
Equal Rights Amendment --- Equal Means Equal v. Trump
<https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69840327/equal-means-equal-v-trump/>.
It will be argued by New England Law Adjunct Professor of Law/Co-Director,
Judicial Language Project, Sexual Violence Legal News Wendy Murphy, JD, in
Boston at 2 pm EST on September, 15th, 2025, at the United States District
Court for District of Massachusetts.

To date, most ERA supporting groups are unaware of this momentous
litigation or have remained uncommitted. Today is the opportunity to lend
us your expressed support and go public by supporting the Equal Means Equal
v. Trump
<https://equalmeansequal.org/equal-means-equal-files-historic-womens-rights-lawsuit-against-donald-j-trump/>
efforts
to advance recognition of the ERA and its attendant demand of strict
scrutiny for all. We are asking that you write back to us with your
expressed interest and support of Equal Means Equal v. Trump
<https://clearinghouse.net/case/46338/>. That would mean everything for the
ERA struggle.

On August, 1st, 2025, 50+ organizations signed onto the amicus brief
<https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282892/gov.uscourts.mad.282892.12.0.pdf>supporting
EQUAL MEANS EQUAL v. Trump. Thank you.

It will be argued:

   - The ERA is the Twenty-Eighth Amendment
      - The deadline is per se invalid.
      - The deadline is invalid because it is in the preamble.
   - States cannot rescind ratifications.
   - Because the ERA is valid, plaintiffs are entitled to strict scrutiny
   review.
   - Even if the ERA is not valid, plaintiffs are entitled to strict
   scrutiny review under the Fifth Amendment.
   - The Military Selective Service Act is unconstitutional under strict
   scrutiny.

*Case Summary:*

This case is a challenge to the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), 50
U.S.C. § 3801 et seq., which requires male citizens to register for the
draft but bars women from doing so. On April 3, 2025, Equal Means Equal
(EME), a nonprofit advocacy group, and a female Massachusetts resident
filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. They sued President Donald Trump, the Acting Director of the
Selective Service System, and the Selective Service System, alleging
violations of the Equal Rights Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Equal
Protection Clause. Judge William G. Young was assigned to the case.

Represented by the Women’s and Children’s Advocacy Project, the plaintiffs
alleged that the individual plaintiff’s attempt to register for the
Selective Service had been rejected solely because of her gender and that
two EME members had faced similar denials. They argued that the categorical
exclusion of women from Selective Service registration violated the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA), which they claimed became the Twenty-Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution upon Virginia’s ratification in
2020. The plaintiffs maintained that the The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1981
decision in *Rostker v. Goldberg*, which upheld the male-only draft
registration, no longer controlled because it predated both the ERA’s
ratification and significant changes in military policy permitting women to
serve in combat roles. They further alleged a violation of the Fifth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, arguing that denying women the right
to register served no compelling government interest.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They requested a
judicial declaration that the exclusion of women from draft registration
was unconstitutional under both the ERA and the Fifth Amendment. They also
sought to enjoin the federal government from continuing to enforce the
male-only registration requirement, alleging that the policy stigmatized
women and deprived them of equal civic obligations and opportunities.

On June 17, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. They argued
that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs’ claims under the
Administrative Procedure Act were unripe, and that the constitutional
claims failed as a matter of law. The motion to dismiss also disputed the
plaintiffs’ characterization of the ERA’s ratification status. The court
established a briefing schedule, ordering plaintiffs to file their
opposition by July 17, 2025.

In their opposition, the plaintiffs reiterated their core arguments that
the Military Selective Service Act violated the ERA and the Equal
Protection Clause. They also asserted that this lawsuit, brought by women
on behalf of women, was the proper vehicle to address the constitutional
questions at issue and distinguished it from other pending cases such as
Valame v. Biden. They further argued that the court should apply strict
scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny, which they claimed had long
enabled unequal treatment of women.

*There is a possibility that your offices will be able to listen remotely* to
the 9/15/2025 2 pm EST arguments by Wendy Murphy, JD. To attend hearings
remotely-- *If offered by the session*, the public or media may register to
attend a hearing remotely via audio. Certain proceedings allow for public
and media access via audio with the judge's discretion. Some proceedings
are in-person only. You are able to register for hearings 2 days in advance
(9/12, 9/13, 9/14). Please proceed to *this page
<https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html>* if you wish to sign up for
a hearing occurring at a later date. Please enter William G. Young as the
judge and EQUAL MEANS EQUAL v. Trump under Search to register, if remote
listening should be available.

Please join us in the efforts today to advance the duly ratified Equal
Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Respectfully,
Eileen A. Murphy
Wendy Murphy, JD
Kamala Lopez, Executive Director & Founder at Equal Means Equal
Natalie White, Co-Director at Equal Means Equal

--
Eileen A. Murphy, MD, FACOG
(she, hers)
Assistant Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Co-Leader, National ERA Publication Task Force
Gynecologist & OB Hospitalist
Chicago, IL
mobile: 312-282-1559
eafmurphy at gmail.com
*https://www.linkedin.com/in/eileenamurphymd/
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/eileenamurphymd/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/action/attachments/20250911/86c4c4a2/attachment-0001.htm>