; Whereas, on January 6, 2020, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion stating, We do not believe, however, that Congress in 2020 may change the terms upon which the 1972 Congress proposed the ERA for the States’ consideration. Article V does not expressly or implicitly grant Congress such authority. To the contrary, the text contemplates no role for Congress in the ratification process after it proposes an amendment. Moreover, such a congressional power finds no support in Supreme Court precedent. ; Whereas the 2020 Office of Legal Counsel opinion also observed, Because Congress and the State legislatures are distinct actors in the constitutional amendment process, the 116th Congress may not revise the terms under which two-thirds of both Houses proposed the ERA Resolution and under which 35 State legislatures initially ratified it. Such an action by this Congress would seem tantamount to asking the 116th Congress to override a veto that President Carter had returned during the 92nd Congress, a power this Congress plainly does not have. ; and Whereas in oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Virginia v. Ferriero case on September 28, 2022, Judge Robert Wilkins of that Court asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sarah Harrington, Why shouldn’t the Archivist just certify and publish [the Equal Rights Amendment] and let Congress decide whether the deadline should be enforced …? , and Ms. Harrington answered, “The Constitution doesn’t contemplate any role for Congress at the back end. Congress proposes the amendment, it goes out into the world, and the States do what they’re going to do”: Now, therefore, be it