Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights: Can the U.S. Still Claim Gender Equality?

Introduction

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, represent a global call to action to address pressing challenges such as poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace, and justice. Among the 17 goals, SDG 5—"Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls"—stands out as a key objective that intersects with nearly all other goals. Achieving gender equality is crucial for sustainable development, and the United States, like many other nations, faces scrutiny regarding its progress in this area.

As the United States continues navigating its complex political landscape, questions regarding its adherence to international agreements like the SDGs and domestic legal decisions arise. The U.S. has made strides toward equality, but certain Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism for potentially undermining these efforts. This paper addresses two key questions: (1) Has the United States signed the relevant documents in agreement with the UN SDGs? (2) Can the United States be considered an equal society, especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings that seem to contravene the principle of gender equality, particularly for women?

The U.S. and the UN SDGs

The Sustainable Development Goals are part of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which aims to address the most critical global challenges by 2030. While many countries formally adopted the SDGs, there is no legal requirement for signatory states to enact the goals through domestic legislation. Rather, the SDGs serve as a framework guiding nations toward voluntary implementation of sustainable and equitable policies.

The United States has expressed its commitment to the SDGs, particularly under the Obama administration, which played a significant role in drafting the 2030 Agenda. However, the U.S. never officially ratified the SDGs as binding law. Instead, U.S. efforts toward achieving these goals have largely been led by states, municipalities, and private sectors rather than a coordinated federal approach. For example, cities like New York and Los Angeles have committed to incorporating the SDGs into their policies on housing, public health, and education. However, on a national scale, especially under the Trump administration, there was a notable withdrawal from global governance frameworks, including the Paris Agreement, which is closely linked to the environmental goals within the SDGs.

More recently, under the Biden administration, there has been a renewed focus on aligning domestic policies with SDG targets, including issues related to climate action, social justice, and gender equality. Yet, the U.S. has not signed any specific binding agreements that hold it accountable for achieving SDG 5 or other related goals. The U.S. approach to the SDGs remains fragmented, relying heavily on non-governmental organizations, corporations, and subnational governments to take the lead in addressing these global objectives.

The Legal Framework for Gender Equality in the U.S.

Gender equality has been a longstanding issue in the U.S. legal framework, largely centered around constitutional interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Over the decades, landmark legal cases have expanded the scope of equal protection to include sex-based discrimination. Significant rulings, such as Reed v. Reed (1971), Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), and United States v. Virginia (1996), have reinforced the notion that gender-based discrimination violates the constitutional rights of women. Furthermore, legislative acts such as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 have contributed to advancing women's rights.

Despite these advancements, recent Supreme Court rulings and political developments have raised concerns about the durability of gender equality in the U.S. context. The most prominent recent ruling, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), a decision that had protected women’s reproductive rights for nearly 50 years. This ruling has reignited debates about whether women in the U.S. are guaranteed equal rights under the law, especially considering how this decision disproportionately affects women of colour and low-income women.

Impact of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision on Gender Equality

The Dobbs ruling marks a significant shift in how reproductive rights are perceived in the U.S. legal landscape. By overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court removed federal protections for a woman's right to choose an abortion, leaving the decision to individual states. Many states have since enacted highly restrictive abortion laws, and some have even criminalized abortion under certain circumstances.

From the perspective of international commitments like the SDGs, this ruling presents a major setback to achieving gender equality in the United States. SDG 5 explicitly calls for ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) by 2030. The United Nations has long recognized that access to reproductive healthcare is a fundamental aspect of women's autonomy, empowerment, and equality. By stripping federal protections for reproductive rights, the Dobbs decision arguably contradicts the spirit of SDG 5 and weakens the U.S. position as a global leader in gender equality.

Moreover, the consequences of this ruling extend beyond reproductive rights. Legal scholars have raised concerns that Dobbs could pave the way for the erosion of other rights that were previously considered settled under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, including access to contraception, same-sex marriage, and protections against gender-based violence. Such developments call into question whether the U.S. can still be considered a society where men and women enjoy equal rights and treatment under the law.

The Intersection of Race and Gender Equality

The impact of the Dobbs ruling also reveals deep racial and economic inequities. Research shows that women of colour—particularly Black and Latina women—are disproportionately affected by restrictive abortion laws, as they are more likely to live in states with such restrictions and have limited access to reproductive healthcare. Low-income women, who often lack the financial resources to travel to states where abortion remains legal, are similarly impacted. As a result, the Dobbs decision exacerbates existing inequalities, particularly for marginalized women who already face systemic barriers to healthcare, education, and employment opportunities.

The intersection of race and gender is crucial to understanding how Supreme Court rulings like Dobbs perpetuate inequality. Gender equality cannot be fully realized in the U.S. unless the rights of all women, including women of color, are protected. The Dobbs ruling challenges this by creating a patchwork of reproductive rights across the country, where a woman's access to healthcare is increasingly determined by her race, income, and geographical location. This fragmented approach to reproductive rights is in direct conflict with the principles of equality enshrined in the SDGs, which emphasize the need for universal and equitable access to health services.

?The Broader Political and Social Context

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling did not occur in isolation; it is part of a broader conservative legal and political strategy that seeks to reshape constitutional interpretations of individual rights. Over the past several decades, conservative legal scholars and advocates have worked to limit the scope of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, particularly in the context of reproductive rights and gender equality.

At the same time, efforts to address gender inequality at the federal level have stalled. For example, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), first introduced in Congress in 1923 and passed by Congress in 1972, has yet to be fully ratified by the required number of states to become part of the Constitution. The ERA would explicitly guarantee equal rights for men and women under the law, but despite renewed efforts in recent years, it remains in legislative limbo. Without such constitutional protections, the legal foundation for gender equality in the U.S. remains vulnerable to political shifts and judicial reinterpretations.

Additionally, public opinion on gender equality and reproductive rights remains deeply divided. According to a Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans support access to legal abortion, but opinions vary significantly across political, religious, and demographic groups. This polarization reflects broader societal divisions that have made it increasingly difficult to achieve consensus on gender equality and other social justice issues in the U.S. In this context, the question of whether the U.S. can be considered an equal society becomes even more complex.

Can the U.S. Be Considered an Equal Society?

Given the legal and political developments discussed, it is difficult to argue that the U.S. is currently an equal society, particularly concerning gender equality. The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, in particular, represents a significant step backward in the fight for women’s rights, especially when viewed in the context of international commitments like the SDGs. While the U.S. has made important strides toward gender equality in the past, recent rulings and the lack of federal protections for reproductive rights suggest that women’s equality is far from guaranteed.

Moreover, the intersection of race and gender reveals deeper structural inequalities that prevent the U.S. from achieving true equality. As long as access to reproductive healthcare, education, and employment opportunities is unevenly distributed along racial and economic lines, the U.S. will continue to fall short of its domestic and international commitments to gender equality.

Conclusion

While the United States has made progress in addressing gender inequality through legal and legislative means, recent Supreme Court rulings like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization have exposed significant setbacks in the pursuit of gender equality. The ruling has not only undermined women’s reproductive rights but also raised concerns about the future of other gender-related protections under the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the disproportionate impact of these rulings on women of colour and low-income women highlights the intersectional nature of inequality in the U.S.

The United States has expressed support for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 5 on gender equality, but has not formally signed binding agreements that hold it accountable for achieving these goals. As a result, gender equality in the U.S. remains subject to political and judicial fluctuations, making it difficult to consider