Highest State Court Indicates that Purpose of ERA was to Create Enforceable Antidiscrimination Protections

In a limited decision, Court rules only that ERA did not repeal judicial mandatory retirement age constitutional provision, but notes ERA’s visionary purpose

NEW YORK – Today, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision in Miller v. State of New York, a case challenging the mandatory retirement age for state court judges. While the court ruled only that the New York Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) did not repeal the mandatory judicial retirement age provision in the New York State Constitution, it noted that the purpose of the ERA was to expand “the list of classes affirmatively protected by the New York Constitution in recognition of the need for comprehensive, enforceable, and intersectional equality under the law.” While the NYCLU took no position on the merits of the case, it filed an amicus brief encouraging the Court to recognize the full enforceability of the New York ERA after the State took the extraordinary position that the ERA is not legally enforceable on its own. This is the first time the New York Court of Appeals has heard a claim brought under the New York Equal Rights Amendment since it was ratified by an overwhelming majority of voters in 2024.

In response, the New York Civil Liberties Union issued the following statement, attributable to JP Perry, senior staff attorney at the NYCLU:

“The Court of Appeals today notes that the purpose of the ERA was to expand ‘the list of classes affirmatively protected by the New York Constitution in recognition of the need for comprehensive, enforceable, and intersectional equality under the law.’ In a compelling concurrence, Judge Troutman lays a pathway for future cases to undeniably conclude the ERA is enforceable. By only addressing judicial retirement age, this decision was a missed opportunity to clarify the ERA’s enforceability once and for all. But, we are confident that the next case to come before the New York Court of Appeals will vindicate that the ERA guarantees every New Yorker equal treatment. That is what an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers voted for after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Roe v. Wade.

“This ruling is limited, but the decision today gave every indication that the Equal Rights Amendment created expansive anti-discrimination equality protections for New Yorkers. As future cases play out across New York, courts must recognize the full enforceability of the Equal Rights Amendment.”

###