State equal rights amendments

[1][3] Courts reflect on the unique legislative history and development, intent, status of public policy and related precedent in deciding the scope of legal safeguards afforded to sex discrimination, resulting in differences between state and federal jurisprudence.

[2][3] Certain aspects frequently conflicting with federal protection are questions of facially-neutral laws and disparate impact, state action, whether sex is deemed a suspect classification, and different treatment because of unique biological traits.

[1][2][3] For example, states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts have some of the most stringent protection, their courts ruling the main intent of the ERA was to abolish using sex to make legal distinctions and allocate benefits.

For example, Virginia, Rhode Island, Florida and Utah courts have ruled their constitutions only mandate an intermediate standard of review, mirroring the Equal Protection Clause analysis.

[2][7] In concluding the constitution's equality protection is not a "true ERA," the Rhode Island courts have accepted this middle-tier scrutiny, citing the unique history and intent of the legislature as justification.