478 F.Supp.3d 105
D. Mass.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Equal Means Equal, The Yellow Roses (advocacy organizations) and Katherine Weitbrecht sued the Archivist of the United States seeking an order compelling the Archivist to record all state ratifications of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and to declare the ERA ratified.
- ERA context: Congress proposed the ERA in 1972 with a seven-year ratification deadline; 35 states ratified before the deadline; Congress extended the deadline to 1982; recent state ratifications in 2017–2020 brought the disputed total to 37+ states and prompted agency review.
- The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion (Jan. 6, 2020) that the ERA’s proposing-clause deadline was valid and expired, and advised the Archivist not to certify later ratifications; the Archivist deferred to OLC.
- Plaintiffs allege organizational injuries (diversion of resources, impeded advocacy and public education) and individual injury (Weitbrecht’s past sex-based assault and alleged chilling/reluctance to report future sex-based crimes), and assert a procedural right under 1 U.S.C. § 106b to publication of ratified amendments.
- The Archivist moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, concluding plaintiffs’ alleged harms were generalized, not fairly traceable to the Archivist, and not redressable by the relief sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (general) | All persons protected by the ERA suffer injury because Archivist’s refusal denies them constitutional equality | Plaintiffs’ asserted injuries are generalized grievances and not particularized or concrete | Plaintiffs lack Article III standing; generalized injuries insufficient |
| Individual standing (Weitbrecht) | Past assault, ongoing fear and reluctance to report sex-based crimes show concrete injury tied to lack of ERA recognition | Her harms are not traceable to Archivist and the requested ERA declaration cannot redress past assault or speculative future harm | Weitbrecht lacks standing; harms are speculative or attributable to third parties, not the Archivist |
| Organizational / associational standing | Organizations diverted resources to educate/advocate and thus suffered concrete organizational injury; members allegedly injured | Resource diversion for advocacy and education is an abstract interest and cannot manufacture standing; associational standing inadequately pled | Organizations lack standing: associational standing not shown (members not identified with requisite harms); organizational injury is advocacy-related and insufficient under Sierra Club; not saved by mere spending |
| Procedural-injury claim (1 U.S.C. §106b / publication) | Archivist’s failure to publish/certify is a procedural violation that plaintiffs may vindicate | A bare procedural violation without a concrete, particularized interest cannot satisfy Article III | Procedural claim fails: plaintiffs show no separate concrete interest impaired by any procedural violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (generalized stigmatic injuries do not confer Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury must be concrete and particularized; causation and redressability required)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (procedural violations alone do not automatically confer Article III standing)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (an organization’s special interest in an issue is insufficient for standing)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (an organization may have standing where defendant’s conduct perceptibly impairs its activities and forces resource diversion)
- Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (an informational injury can be sufficiently concrete when statute mandates disclosure)
- Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (no standing where plaintiffs assert only generalized grievances)