This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As Bryan Kohberger prepares for sentencing Wednesday for the murders of four University of Idaho students, President Donald Trump is hoping the judge in the case makes the admitted killer "explain why he did these horrible murders."
Trump posted on Truth Social Monday: "Bryan Kohberger, who was responsible, in Idaho, for the deaths of four wonderful young souls, has made a plea bargain deal in order to avoid the Death Penalty.
"These were vicious murders, with so many questions left unanswered. While Life Imprisonment is tough, it's certainly better than receiving the Death Penalty but, before Sentencing, I hope the Judge makes Kohberger, at a minimum, explain why he did these horrible murders.
"There are no explanations, there is no NOTHING. People were shocked that he was able to plea bargain, but the Judge should make him explain what happened. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
In a stunning plea deal that shocked even the judge in the case, Kohberger pleaded guilty to all charges on July 2, some two months before his trial was slated to commence in Boise, Idaho.
The victims were 21-year-olds Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves, as well as 20-year-olds Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There may, or may not, be a lot of new information coming out about convicted sex offender billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and his activities.
Those are suspected to include providing teenage girls to high-profile personalities including celebrities and politicians.
It appears a lot of the details long have been hidden – at least over the last four years when Democrats were in charge of investigatory procedures. The Trump administration first promised to release all the details, then concluded there was nothing more available, then reversed again and now is promising to release what's "credible."
And Trump's appointees just went a step further, promising a conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her involvement as an aide to Epstein, who died in a New York jail in 2019, regarding sexually exploiting underage girls.
A report at the Liberty Daily explains Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche already has contacted Maxwell's legal team to assess her interest in speaking with prosecutors.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has confirmed that President Donald Trump has ordered the release of all credible evidence relating to the case.
She said if Maxwell has information about crimes committed against victims, the FBI and DOJ want to hear it.
Bondi said, "This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead."
Blanche said, "For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know?"
A report at the Daily Caller News Foundation noted Blanche expects to meet with Maxwell "in the coming days."
House Democrats, who ignored their own party's inaction on the issue for years under Joe Biden, suddenly have begun insisting that Epstein-related information be released.
A commentary from noted opinion-writer Victor Davis Hanson has concluded, "The long and the short of it: There was never a list where he [Epstein] had a list of people who had engaged in pornographic or pedophilic behavior at his various residences. What the list implied was that in 2008, his first trial—and then again a few years later—there were a lot of testimonies in these indictments and convictions and text and evidence that was subpoenaed. So, names came up in text messages, emails, maybe some video on logs on the airplane. So, there's a long list, apparently, of over 170 people."
He noted names already available include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Kevin Spacey, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.
"What am I getting at? All of these people had come in contact with this near-billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein. Apparently, he was close to Harvard University. He had a temporary office there. His modus operandi was to lavish money on political candidates, foundations, universities, celebrities, and entertain. And there was a subset in that group that engaged in pedophilic behavior," he explained.
He said, "I think Donald Trump is going to release all the information that the government has. There'll probably be 150 or 200 names. And we'll let the internet mob or individuals or Freedom of Information requests or lower court judges, they will adjudicate it and we will find out the particular statuses. The vast majority of people will be very innocent, that they didn't do anything wrong. But there will be some people that will have a cast, a shadow of doubt. And we'll have to find out."
He said Trump himself has plausible explanations for the photographs that show him with Epstein, with his decision some years ago to disassociated from Epstein.
"But for right now, I think he's salvaged this problem and aborted a controversy by just saying, 'Get this stuff out there and let the people decide.' It's the way it always should be in a democracy, in an open society," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
House Speaker Mike Johnson says Congress may subpoena former President Barack Obama over allegations of treason involving the coordinated effort by his administration to harm then-incoming President Donald Trump.
Johnsons confirmed to reporter David Brody in an interview that he is considering a subpoena after DNI Tulsi Gabbard released damning declassified documents related to the 2016 plot against Trump.
"I think we have a responsibility to follow the truth, where it leads," Johnson said, pointing out that if Obama was complicit, he needs to be held accountable.
"If it's uncomfortable for him, he shouldn't have been involved in overseeing this, which is what it appears to us has happened," Johnson told Brody.
Monday the Department of Justice confirmed receipt of documents from Gabbard that outline how Obama and his national security team "laid the groundwork" for years of attacks on Trump.
"Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people," Gabbard posted on X Friday regarding the criminal referral. "No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it. We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral."
Gabbard said, "There must be indictments" for the "treasonous conspiracy. … They all must be held accountable."
Noted Gabbard Sunday: "The implications of this are, frankly, nothing short of historic. Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama if just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The office of former President Barack Obama responded Tuesday to President Donald Trump's assertion that Obama was "the ringleader" of treasonous crimes designed to severely undermine Trump.
Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush indicated Trump and his officials were voicing "outrageous" claims.
"Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Rodenbush stated.
"But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction."
"Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," he continued.
"These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Trump on Tuesday unleashed his fury concerning the false and "treasonous" Russia-collusion plot to undermine him, and he named Obama specifically as the driving force.
"Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"Hillary Clinton was right there with him and so was Sleepy Joe Biden, and so were the rest of them: [James] Comey, [James] Clapper, the whole group. They tried to rig an election and then they got CAUGHT! And then they did rig the election in 2020."
When asked whom the U.S. Justice Department should target in its probe of the matter, Trump responded: "It would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with him, and Comey was there and Clapper, the whole group was there."
"If you look at those papers, they have him stone cold, and it was President Obama. It wasn't lots of people all over the place, it was them too. But the leader of the gang was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him? Except for the fact that he gets shielded by the press for his entire life."
"Look, he's guilty," Trump continued. "It's there. He's guilty. This was treason. This was every word you could think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries."
"They caught President Obama absolutely cold," Trump added.
"They tried to rig the election and they got caught, and there should be very severe consequences for that. When we caught Hillary Clinton, I said, 'You know, what? Let's not go too far here. It's the ex-wife of a president.' … I let her off the hook and I'm very happy I did. But it's time to start, after what they did to me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama has been caught directly!"
"It's Obama. His orders are on the paper. The papers are signed, the papers came right out of their office. They sent everything to be highly classified. Well, the highly classified has been released. And what they did in 2016 and 2020 is very criminal, it's criminal at the highest level.
On Monday night, Trump posted similar thoughts on Truth Social, saying: "Obama himself manufactured the Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, and numerous others participated in this, THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY!. Irrefutable EVIDENCE. A major threat to our Country!!!"
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has already turned over information about the case to the U.S. Justice Department for criminal referral, and Gabbard herself said on Sunday, "There must be indictments."
Meanwhile, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated Monday that Congress may subpoena Obama over allegations of a coordinated plot against Trump.
"I think we have a responsibility to follow the truth, where it leads," Johnson told journalist David Brody.
"To do effectively the opposite of what that other team did – they were engaged in a partisan political plot to take down their foe in the other party. We need to be about the rule of law and bring an order to the chaos and searching out the truth because the American people are owed those answers."
"If it's uncomfortable for him, he shouldn't have been involved in overseeing this, which is what it appears to us has happened," Johnson said.
President Trump's Justice Department is firing dozens of career prosecutors, sparking alarm among his critics.
Critics have accused Trump of a troubling departure from established norms with his sweeping shakeup of the DOJ, which has played a central role in Trump's political career, mainly as an antagonist, until now.
Trump's rise as a politician led Democrats to embrace the justice system as a defense of "our democracy," as Democrats welcomed criminal investigations into Trump in an effort to derail his political ambitions.
Attorney general Pam Bondi has fired several prosecutors who were involved in Special Counsel Jack Smith's politically explosive investigations of Trump in 2024.
Smith's efforts divided the nation, with some cheering Smith as a warrior for justice and others condemning him as a political hatchet man.
Trump recently quipped about his reversal of fortunes since becoming president again, remarking, "I was the hunted, and now I'm the hunter."
After the FBI spent years pursuing Trump, the agency has turned to targeting his critics, such as James Comey and John Brennan, and the DOJ is purging employees with little explanation.
Justice Connection, a new group formed to protect career employees who feel threatened by the new administration, estimates that over 200 have been fired.
"The senseless terminations at the Justice Department are growing exponentially. The very institution created to enforce the law is trampling over the civil service laws enacted by Congress. It’s shameful, and it’s devastating the workforce,” Stacey Young, executive director and founder of the group, said in a statement to The Hill.
One of the prosecutors who was fired without explanation, Maureen Comey, is the daughter of FBI director James Comey, a notorious Trump critic.
In a letter to her colleagues, Maureen Comey cast her firing as an arbitrary act of revenge and cast Trump as a "tyrant" who is threatening the rule of law. Comey urged her colleagues to do their jobs "without fear of favor."
“Our focus was really on acting ‘without favor.’ That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law,” Comey said in the memo.
Skepticism of impartial justice has long animated Trump's movement, with many seeing Trump as the victim of a witch hunt spurred on by critics including Maureen's father, who notoriously declined to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton despite her illegal use of an e-mail server to send top secret information.
The Trump administration has also fired immigration judges, and at least one state judge in Wisconsin is facing criminal charges for helping an illegal alien evade the law.
President Obama was the central figure in an effort to discredit the 2016 election results by politicizing the intelligence community against its unexpected winner, President Trump, according to newly declassified documents.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard filed a criminal referral to the Justice Department, citing Obama's role in a "treasonous conspiracy."
"These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate,” she wrote on X.
The intelligence community was initially skeptical that Russia interfered in the election, but those findings apparently changed after Trump's upset victory against Hillary Clinton.
A declassified intelligence brief that was prepared for Obama, dated December 8, 2016, had concluded that Russia did not make any impact on election infrastructure beyond hacking a voter registration database in Illinois.
The brief was not published as expected after the FBI, which was investigating Trump at the time, registered a "dissent."
President Obama ordered a new, "comprehensive" assessment of Russian interference following a December 9 White House meeting, where top national security officials, including James Clapper, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, and Susan Rice, met to discuss Russia.
"The IC is prepared to produce an assessment per the President’s request," Clapper's assistant wrote, "that pulls together the information we have on the tools Moscow used and the actions it took to influence the 2016 election."
The final intelligence community assessment published weeks later on January 7 "directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months,” Gabbard said.
The IC assessment concluded in no uncertain language that Vladimir Putin directed an interference campaign with the goal of getting Trump elected.
The claim that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump would fuel a years-long investigation of "Russian collusion" that came up empty.
The FBI's Trump-Russia probe began in July 2016 and involved spying on Trump's campaign using bogus opposition research procured by the Clinton camp. The investigation would eventually come to cast a cloud over Trump's first term.
The individuals involved in the January 2017 IC assessment included FBI director James Comey and CIA director John Brennan, both notorious critics of Trump who are currently under investigation by the FBI.
“Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people," Gabbard said.
President Trump hosted a calendar girl competition at Mar-A-Lago where Jeffrey Epstein was a guest, the New York Times reported.
The detail was first reported in 2019 by the New York Times and the outlet shared it again in a recent article about Trump's past friendship with Epstein.
Trump does not stand accused of any wrongdoing with Epstein, and Trump has always denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes. The former neighbors in Palm Beach, Florida socialized together for more than a decade before they grew estranged in 2004.
Their past friendship has fallen under scrutiny again as Trump confronts anger and skepticism over his administration's handling of the Epstein files.
Trump has dismissed the persistent interest in the story among MAGA supporters as a distraction and a "hoax" being pushed by Democrats.
That Trump led a playboy lifestyle in his younger days is no secret. A 1992 video filmed by NBC News shows Trump dancing with glamorous young women at a Mar-A-Lago party where Epstein was also present. At one point in the footage, which was released in 2019, Epstein doubles over with laughter from something Trump says to him.
That same year, Trump hosted a calendar girl competition where Epstein was reportedly the only guest.
"Months later, when Mr. Trump hosted a party at Mar-a-Lago for young women in a so-called calendar girl competition, Mr. Epstein was the only other guest, according to George Houraney, a Florida-based businessman who arranged the event," the New York Times reported.
Trump's rupture with Epstein came after Trump beat his friend's bid for a beachfront mansion in Palm Beach. But Trump later told people that he felt obligated to bar Epstein from Mar-A-Lago after learning that he acted inappropriately with the daughter of a club member.
"Brad Edwards, a lawyer who has represented many of Mr. Epstein’s victims, said. Mr. Trump told him a similar story in 2009," the Times noted.
Trump's relationship with Epstein unraveled around 2004, before Epstein's first arrest, which led to a notoriously lenient plea deal. In 2019, Epstein was charged a second time with sex trafficking.
“I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” Trump told reporters at the time. “I mean, people in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don’t think I’ve spoken to him in 15 years. I wasn’t a fan.”
Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal for defamation after the newspaper published a bawdy letter that Trump allegedly sent to Epstein on his 50th birthday in 2003. The letter features an imagined conversation between the two men written inside a sketch of a naked woman.
In an effort to calm his base, Trump has ordered attorney general Pam Bondi to request the release of grand jury materials in the Epstein case from a court in New York. But Trump predicted that "troublemakers" will never be satisfied with the government's answers.
"Even if the Court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more," Trump said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat representing New York in Congress, has found himself facing accusations he's been interfering with a federal criminal case over his political agenda against a law-enforcement nominee picked by President Donald Trump.
It is Jeffries who is the target of requests by multiple legal activists to the Ethics Committee for an investigation.
The development came about because he actively lobbied federal judges in the district to remove acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba from her post there.
Habba was appointed temporarily while her nomination as a permanent replacement moves through the approval process, but she is allowed to stay as an acting official for only a few months unless the judges in the district approve.
Jeffries was enraged at Habba because she charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., with obstructing Homeland Security agents during an altercation at an immigration facility in Newark on May 9.
McIver is heading for trial in November.
A report from Fox News explains Jeffries has made claims that Habba isn't qualified because she indicted McIver "for doing her job."
It was the Article III Project that wrote to the House Ethics committee with the explanation that Jeffries "improperly insert[ed] himself into a criminal proceeding."
"This is clear corruption by House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries," the charge said.
Jeffries discounted his interference in the case.
The Ethics Committee may or may not choose to act on Article III Project's letter. The group did not file a formal complaint with the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC), which would have been required to study the complaint before giving a formal recommendation to the Ethics Committee, the report explained.
Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Habba to the position in an acting capacity and her nomination for the post permanently has been delayed by Democrats in the Senate who want to attack and delay the Trump agenda.
Fifteen of the 17 judges in the district owe their jobs to Democrats.
"A House member – particularly the House Democratic leader – who disagrees with the merits of a pending criminal case abuses his official position when he attempts to strong-arm federal judges to corruptly prejudice the ongoing criminal proceeding by firing the U.S. attorney for the purely political reason of protecting a partisan House colleague," charged the complaint.
McIver and two other members of Congress claimed to be doing "oversight" when they physically clashed with federal law enforcement officers.
WND reported McIver physically handled a federal agent at the time.
The situation is just a symptom, more or less, of a bigger agenda by the Democrats, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University who has not only testified before Congress as an expert on the nation's founding law, but has represented members in constitutional disputes in court.
He explained the "new defense" being used by Democrats, from city council to Congress, is that "their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government."
"The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path," he said.
He said officials were able to subdue the incursion quickly.
But the messaging from McIver was that she could do what for other citizens would be "trespass and assault" because of her "legislative oversight" privileges as a member of Congress.
Her comments were a reprise of what other Democrats already have demanded.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared 'You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we're going to have a problem,'" the report noted.
Jeffries has "ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver."
He said, "It's a red line. They know better than to go down that road."
The fault in making the "oversight" claim is that the law does not allow even members of Congress to have unauthorized access to secure federal facilities. Members of Congress can subpoena the executive branch, or get a court order, but they "do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A member of Congress has sent to the Department of Justice the name of Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell, asking for an investigation for his alleged "lying under oath."
Powell is facing headwinds in his position now as he's push for leaving interest rates relatively high despite the booming economy, low inflation, and more, under President Donald Trump.
And specifically, he's come under fire from several interest groups or individuals for the renovation of the agency's headquarters where the costs have exploded from a planned $1.8 billion to more than $2.5 billion.
A report at Fox News explains U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., now has referred Powell to the DOJ for investigation, and possible charges.
A letter Fox obtained explained Powell is accused of perjury on two separate occasions.
"On June 25, 2025, Chairman Powell provided testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding the renovation of the Federal Reserve's Eccles Building. In his statements, he made several materially false claims," Luna charges.
She described as suspect his claims about lavish amenities as the agency's Eccles Building.
"Separately, in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, Chairman Powell characterized the changes that escalated the cost of the project from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion as minor. However, documents reviewed by congressional investigators indicate that the scope and cost overruns of this project were neither minor in nature nor in substance," she said.
She said Powell's comments about the building and its renovation project are "contradicted by the Federal Reserve's final submission to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and by the assertions made in Director Vought's own original letter to Chairman Powell."
At issue, the report said, are "a VIP private dining room, premium marble finishes, modernized elevators, water features, and a roof terrace garden" at the project.
The report explained Powell has denied they exist.
Powell, to a trade outlet, has denied accusations of perjury.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now even a leftist court has sounded off on the wild claim by Democrats, other progressives, and Joe Biden that the Equal Rights Amendment now is "law of the land."
The ERA was proposed back in the 1970s, some five decades ago. It was approved by Congress and states were given seven years to endorse it. The deadline even, under a questionable scheme, was "extended" by three years.
It failed.
Then, not just years, but decades after the deadline has passed, Democrats in several states schemed to vote on the idea, with Virginia's "approval" coming just recently.
So claimed the Democrats that the damaging ERA, which could be applied to do things like erase abortion restrictions nationwide and require the draft for women, was the law.
Joe Biden quickly jumped out onto that limb.
However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now has ruled such claims "meritless."
The panel didn't even bother to explain its reasoning, stating simply, "We reject as meritless Valame's contention that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eight Amendment to the Constitution."
It was Vikram Valame who raised the demand that the court create the 28th Amendment judicially in a fight over the legality of the Military Selective Service Act.
A commentary a Twitchy took aim at the wild claim that the ERA was "law."
"There is a cadre of leftists who insist that a proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)—that would make governmental discrimination based on sex illegal—has somehow become part of the Constitution as the alleged Twenty-Eighth Amendment."
It was, in fact, dead for decades after states refused to endorse it before two deadlines passed.
"Then in the last few years a movement came about to give it a late ratification, with Virginia providing it the alleged thirty-eighth ratification. We say 'alleged thirty-eighth ratification' because besides the timing issue, many states that ratified it have purported to rescind that ratification. You cannot claim that thirty-eight states have ratified it without claiming that once a state provides its consent, it cannot withdraw that consent before the proposed amendment reaches the appropriate threshold.
"But what all of that tells you is that the Biden Administration had been fighting this case since June of 2023 and the government's lawyers never said, 'you know what? Valame is right! The ERA is part of the Constitution!' Even after Biden made his declaration that the ERA is part of the Constitution, his administration's lawyers were still fighting it through the end of his term.," the commentary said.
It explained, "Still, it is fair to say that the Ninth Circuit is easily the most liberal in America, so for this claim to fail, even against two Clinton appointees, is just about the gold standard for failing. It's a bit like playing a baseball game where the other side spots your team thirty points and your team still manages to lose. It is a pretty humiliating defeat for this claim."
WND previously reported, when Biden was making his claim to create the amendment that it was among his "flurry of strange and odd behaviors … during the closing days of his term in the White House."
The ERA would have said, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The history of the ideology is long and convoluted but in every scheme it has failed. And under the Constitution, a president lacks the power to reverse court precedent, congressional action and legal determinations, all of which would be necessary.
The report noted that the U.S. Senate, on a 51-47 vote that failed to reach the required 60 votes, blocked the Equal Rights Amendment from being ratified into law in 2023,
WND reported when far-left Sen Kirsten Gillibrand demanded that the corpse of the amendment be dug out of its grave and added to the Constitution.
For the ratification of amendments to the Constitution, at least 38 states must adopt the proposal.
During the time allowed for the ERA to be ratified, 35 states did adopt it. But that was not enough, even after Congress extended the allowed time.
It failed to meet its ratification requirements by the first deadline in 1972, and again in 1982.
The Archivist of the United States has ruled, "The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
"In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate."
Lower courts also have determined the amendment may not be revived after a deadline for its ratification has expired.
One court advised, "Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution."
The concept first was proposed in the U.S. House in 1923, but it didn't gain congressional action until the 1970s. But that legislation included a ratification deadline, which was extended once.
Three states, South Dakota, Louisiana and Alabama, in fact, sued to keep the ERA corpse in its grave.
Further, if ratifications after a deadline were to be accepted, there still would be the issue that Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky and South Dakota, after first adopting it, later reversed their decisions and withdrew their adoptions.