What states rescinded the Equal Rights Amendment?

Overview: Which states rescinded the equal amendment?

The short, direct answer is that five state legislatures adopted resolutions that purport to rescind earlier state ratifications of the Equal Rights Amendment: Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota, and Kentucky. The dates associated with those state actions are part of the standard archival compilation researchers use when tracking ratification and rescission instruments, and the National Archives maintains a state-by-state list that includes those entries National Archives compilation of ERA actions. See a general explainer at the Brennan Center The Equal Rights Amendment, Explained.

Those recorded rescissions are part of the historical record, but whether a rescission is legally effective is not settled. Analysts and legal reviewers treat rescissions as contested because federal courts have not issued a definitive judgment on whether a state can withdraw a prior ratification or whether the congressional ratification deadline governs the instruments submitted decades ago CRS legal and historical summary.

Quick answer

The five states that adopted formal resolutions purporting to rescind prior ratifications are Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota, and Kentucky. Primary documents for several of these are available in state legislative journals and are reflected in the archival compilation maintained by the National Archives National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

Why this question remains contested

Rescission raises two linked legal questions: whether a state legislature can reverse a prior affirmative ratification, and whether the congressional deadline for ratification remains binding. Congressional Research Service reviews describe both the state-level record and the absence of a controlling court decision that resolves those questions, which is why reporters and researchers continue to label rescission as an unsettled issue CRS legal and historical summary and scholarly commentary is available in law journals such as the Harvard Law Review The Equal Rights Amendment: Making Our Union More Perfect.

Short answer and how to read it

What ‘rescission’ means in legislative practice

In this context a rescission is a later state legislative act that purports to withdraw an earlier ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment. In practice that means a legislature passes a resolution or records a journal entry indicating it no longer supports the earlier ratifying instrument; the language and the journal citation form the authoritative state record and should be consulted directly when reporting the action Nebraska legislative journal rescission entry.

Why primary sources matter

Secondary listings and summaries are useful for orientation, but the formal evidence for any state action is the state journal or the official legislative record. When a researcher cites a state’s rescission, they should point to the exact journal page, session, and resolution language rather than only to a summary compilation, because the journal text supplies the precise words and procedural context that underpin any claim Idaho House Journal example.

Short answer and how to read it continued

What the equal amendment is and the ratification process

Under Article V of the Constitution, amendments become valid when three quarters of state legislatures ratify the proposed text. For the Equal Rights Amendment, states voted at various times in the 1970s to ratify, and later some states recorded actions described as rescissions. The National Archives compiles the dates and state actions that have been submitted as ratification or rescission instruments, and researchers commonly use that compilation to track which states have filed ratification or rescission texts National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

After the original congressional resolution included a deadline tied to the 1972 period, additional state submissions in later decades raised questions about whether the amendment could be treated as adopted; by 2020 thirty eight jurisdictions had submitted ratification instruments, but legal questions about the deadline and rescission claims remain unsettled in the courts and in scholarly reviews CRS legal and historical summary.

Where to find the primary rescission texts and official records

State legislative journals and archives to consult

The authoritative place to start is the state legislative journal or the state archive that holds session records. For example, Nebraska and Idaho both keep session journals that show the resolution text and the journal page where the rescission is recorded; consulting those pages lets a researcher read the exact legislative language and note dates and procedural markers Nebraska legislative journal rescission entry. The Library of Congress guide on the ERA ratification effort can also help identify archival collections The Long Road to Equality: What Women Won from ….

How the National Archives compiles state actions

The National Archives gathers copies of state ratification or rescission documents submitted to federal repositories and compiles a state-by-state listing of ratification and rescission actions. That compilation is widely used as the standard archival listing, but it functions as an indexed source rather than a legal adjudication of effect, so it is best paired with the original state text for reporting or academic citation National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

The five states that adopted rescission resolutions: dates and primary citations

Nebraska recorded a resolution purporting to rescind its earlier ERA ratification on March 15, 1973; the precise journal language is recorded in the Nebraska legislative journal and is available through the state legislative archive Nebraska legislative journal rescission entry.

Tennessee’s House Journal records a rescission entry dated April 23, 1974, and that journal page supplies the official text and procedural context for the state’s action; researchers should cite the journal page when noting Tennessee’s entry in any report Tennessee House Journal rescission entry.

Idaho’s House Journal includes a recorded rescission dated February 8, 1977, and the Idaho legislative journal provides the exact wording and session reference for that entry. South Dakota and Kentucky also appear in archival compilations as having adopted rescission measures on the dates recorded in the National Archives list, and those entries should be checked directly in the relevant state journals or archives for exact language Idaho House Journal rescission entry.

Nebraska

Nebraska’s journal entry from March 15, 1973 records the resolution language and the journal pagination that researchers should quote when stating that Nebraska adopted a rescission. The state journal page is the primary evidence to cite in any factual claim about Nebraska’s action Nebraska legislative journal rescission entry.

Tennessee

Tennessee’s April 23, 1974 journal entry is the recorded primary text that supports the claim that Tennessee adopted a rescission. Reporters and scholars should link or quote the journal page for clarity and verification rather than relying only on a secondary summary Tennessee House Journal rescission entry.

Idaho, South Dakota, Kentucky

Idaho’s February 8, 1977 journal entry is a primary-state record of a rescission, while South Dakota and Kentucky appear in the National Archives compilation as having adopted rescissions on the dates shown there. For South Dakota and Kentucky a researcher should consult the state legislative journals or the state archives and then cross-check with the National Archives list to confirm exact wording and dates National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

A practical framework for verifying a state’s claimed rescission

Step 1: locate the journal entry or resolution text

Begin by searching the state’s legislative journal for the session year and date in question. Use the session index or the state’s archive search to find the exact page that records the resolution; the page supplies the resolution number, the session context, and the text that the legislature recorded, which is the authoritative evidence for a claimed rescission National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

Step 2: confirm legislative date and vote language

On the journal page note the recorded date and any vote language or explanatory text. If a resolution includes a committee report or explanatory motion, capture that context as well. The exact phrasing and the journal citation are essential when documenting a state’s action for research or reporting Tennessee House Journal rescission entry.

Step 3: record and cite the exact source

When you record the result, include the state, session, journal page, resolution number if present, and a short quote of the resolution language. Store a PDF or screenshot of the journal page when possible and cross-check the entry with the National Archives listing for consistency and traceability National Archives compilation of ERA actions. For practical guidance on archiving and citation practices see primary-source verification methods primary-source verification.

How courts, Congress and federal agencies have treated rescissions

Official legal summaries note that federal courts have not issued a controlling decision that definitively resolves whether state rescissions are legally effective, which is why the issue remains subject to litigation and scholarly debate. Congressional Research Service reviews describe the factual record of state rescissions and explain that the courts have not settled the legal question, leaving the matter open for future adjudication or congressional action CRS legal and historical summary.

The Archivist’s actions in 2020 and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that followed illustrate how federal actors have taken different positions while courts have not provided a final ruling. Those federal documents are part of the record that researchers consult to understand competing legal claims about certification and deadline questions OLC opinion on Archivist authority.

Because courts have not resolved whether rescissions are effective or whether the congressional deadline controls, researchers should treat any claim that a rescission alone changed the amendment’s status as unsettled until a court or Congress issues a definitive resolution CRS legal and historical summary.

The 2020 Archivist certification, and the Justice Department OLC opinion

What the Archivist certified after Virginia’s ratification

Following Virginia’s 2020 ratification, the Archivist of the United States published a certification for the amendment based on the instruments submitted and the archival record, and that certification is the basis for archival publication in Washington; researchers consult the Archivist’s action as part of the documentary trail when tracing ratification instruments National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

What the OLC opinion argued

The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion questioning whether the Archivist had authority to publish an amendment certification under the circumstances and raising legal doubts about the effect of the 1972 deadline. The OLC memo offers a federal legal analysis that remains part of the public record and that researchers should read alongside the Archivist’s actions and CRS summaries OLC opinion on Archivist authority.

Those two federal documents illustrate competing federal positions and show why the question of final legal effect awaits a court ruling or congressional resolution; neither document by itself settles the dispute in the way a controlling court decision would CRS legal and historical summary.

How to decide if a rescission claim changes the amendment’s legal status

Criteria readers can use

Use a set of objective criteria when evaluating whether a rescission should be treated as affecting legal status: confirm a formal journaled resolution or session entry; check whether the action included an explicit retroactive clause or simple statement of position; verify contemporaneous legislative procedure and vote language; and note whether any federal court has treated the question as dispositive. These are practical criteria to guide reporting and research rather than legal pronouncements CRS legal and historical summary.

When to treat a claim as unsettled

Absent a controlling federal court ruling or explicit congressional action to extend or remove a ratification deadline, treat the legal effect of a rescission as unsettled. That conservative posture reflects the current state of legal analysis and directs researchers to attribute any definitive legal claim to a court or Congress rather than to archival listings alone CRS legal and historical summary.

Common mistakes and pitfalls when reading rescission claims

Confusing an archival compilation with legal effect

One common error is to equate the presence of a state entry in the National Archives compilation with a settled legal outcome. The NARA listing is an archival record that indexes state submissions; it does not resolve legal disputes about rescission effect, so always qualify statements about legal status and point readers to courts, Congress, or federal opinions for adjudication National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

Relying on secondary summaries without primary citations

Another frequent pitfall is citing secondary summaries or news accounts without linking to the exact state journal page. For accuracy, include the state journal page, session, and resolution text when possible. That practice reduces the risk of transcription errors and allows readers to verify the precise wording of the resolution Idaho House Journal rescission entry.

Practical examples: reading a rescission journal entry

Example excerpt and what to note

When you open a journal page for a rescission entry, note the session date, the resolution label or number, and the text quoted in the journal. Capture whether the entry refers to a prior ratification by date or resolution number and whether the journal records a vote or only a recorded motion. Quoting a short excerpt from the journal supports precise reporting and avoids paraphrase mistakes Nebraska legislative journal rescission entry.

How to cite it in reporting or research

Use a citation format that includes the state, session or year, journal page number, and the resolution identifier if available. If you archive or publish the page, include a PDF link to the specific journal page and cross-check the entry with the National Archives listing for consistency and traceability National Archives compilation of ERA actions. For guidance on citation specificity, see my checklist on citation practices citation checklist.

Local and practical implications and what remains unresolved

For most readers the immediate takeaway is factual: five legislatures recorded rescission resolutions, but those actions do not by themselves settle the amendment’s legal status. Reporters and researchers should present the state journal facts and then explain that the legal effect of rescissions remains contested until courts or Congress provide a definitive ruling CRS legal and historical summary.

Michael Carbonara Logo

Local reporting should emphasize primary-source citation and avoid asserting that a rescission changed the constitutional status unless a court or Congress has said so. For deeper research consult the state journals, the National Archives compilation, CRS analyses, and the OLC opinion as part of a transparent reporting chain OLC opinion on Archivist authority.

Conclusion: how to report or research rescissions responsibly

In short: five states issued rescission resolutions recorded in state journals and compiled by the National Archives, but the legal effect of those rescissions is unresolved according to Congressional Research Service analyses and competing federal documents; treat legal claims with attribution to courts or Congress when present National Archives compilation of ERA actions.

When reporting or researching this topic, rely on primary-state journal pages for precise wording, cross-check with the National Archives listing, and attribute any legal conclusions to authoritative legal decisions or statutory action rather than to archival presence alone CRS legal and historical summary.