text:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the
United States of America
Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution
Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
XXI
XXII
XXIII
XXIV
XXV
XXVI
XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin
Child Labor
Equal Rights
D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline
Convention
Signing
Federalism
Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII
Amendments I–X
Amendments XI–XXVII
Unratified Amendments
United States portal
U.S. Government portal
Law portal
Wikipedia book
v
t
e
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress.
The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion and other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v. United States (1935), to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.
Contents
[hide]
1 Text
2 Adoption
2.1 Proposal by Congress
2.2 Ratification by the states
3 Citizenship and civil rights
3.1 Background
3.2 Citizenship Clause
3.2.1 Native Americans
3.2.2 Children born to citizens of other countries
3.2.3 Loss of citizenship
3.3 Privileges or Immunities Clause
3.4 Due Process Clause
3.4.1 Substantive due process
3.4.2 Procedural due process
3.4.3 Incorporation
3.5 Equal Protection Clause
3.6 State actor doctrine
4 Apportionment of representation in House of Representatives
4.1 Enforcement
4.2 Influence
4.3 Criticism
5 Participants in rebellion
6 Validity of public debt
7 Power of enforcement
8 Selected Supreme Court cases
8.1 Citizenship
8.2 Privileges or immunities
8.3 Incorporation
8.4 Substantive due process
8.5 Equal protection
8.6 Felon disenfranchisement
8.7 Power of enforcement
9 See also
10 References
10.1 Notes
10.2 Citations
10.3 Bibliography
11 Further reading
12 External links
Text
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]
Adoption
Proposal by Congress
In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress repeatedly debated the rights of black former slaves freed by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, the latter of which had formally abolished slavery. Following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment by Congress, however, Republicans grew concerned over the increase it would create in the congressional representation of the Democratic-dominated Southern States. Because the full population of freed slaves would now be counted for determining congressional representation, rather than the three-fifths previously mandated by the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern States would dramatically increase their power in the population-based House of Representatives, regardless of whether the former slaves were allowed to vote.[2][3] Republicans began looking for a way to offset this advantage, either by protecting and attracting votes of former slaves, or at least by discouraging their disenfranchisement.[2][4][5]
In 1865, Congress passed what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteeing citizenship without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The bill also guaranteed equal benefits and access to the law, a direct assault on the Black Codes passed by many post-war states. The Black Codes attempted to return ex-slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and preventing them from suing or testifying in court.[6]
Although strongly urged by moderates in Congress to sign the bill, President Andrew Johnson vetoed it on March 27, 1866. In his veto message, he objected to the measure because it conferred citizenship on the freedmen at a time when 11 out of 36 states were unrepresented in the Congress, and that it discriminated in favor of African-Americans and against whites.[7][8] Three weeks later, Johnson's veto was overridden and the measure became law.[9] Despite this victory, even some Republicans who had supported the goals of the Civil Rights Act began to doubt that Congress really possessed constitutional power to turn those goals into laws.[10][11] The experience also encouraged both radical and moderate Republicans to seek Constitutional guarantees for black rights, rather than relying on temporary political majorities.[12]
Over 70 proposals for an amendment were drafted.[13] In late 1865, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction proposed an amendment stating that any citizens barred from voting on the basis of race by a state would not be counted for purposes of representation of that state.[14] This amendment passed the House, but was blocked in the Senate by a coalition of Radical Republicans led by Charles Sumner, who believed the proposal a "compromise with wrong", and Democrats opposed to black rights.[15] Consideration then turned to a proposed amendment by Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio, which would enable Congress to safeguard "equal protection of life, liberty, and property" of all citizens; this proposal failed to pass the House.[15] In April 1866, the Joint Committee forwarded a third proposal to Congress, a carefully negotiated compromise that combined elements of the first and second proposals as well as addressing the issues of Confederate debt and voting by ex-Confederates.[15] The House of Representatives passed House Resolution 127, 39th Congress several weeks later and sent to the Senate for action. The resolution was debated and several amendments to it were proposed. Amendments to Sections 2, 3, and 4 were adopted on June 8, 1866, and the modified resolution passed by a 33 to 11 vote. The House agreed to the Senate amendments on June 13 by a 138–36 vote. A concurrent resolution requesting the President to transmit the proposal to the executives of the several states was passed by both houses of Congress on June 18.[16]
The Radical Republicans were satisfied that they had secured civil rights for blacks, but were disappointed that the amendment would not also secure political rights for blacks; in particular, the right to vote.[17] For example, Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the disappointed Radical Republicans, said: "I find that we shall be obliged to be content with patching up the worst portions of the ancient edifice, and leaving it, in many of its parts, to be swept through by the tempests, the frosts, and the storms of despotism."[17][18] Abolitionist Wendell Phillips called it a "fatal and total surrender".[18] This point would later be addressed by the Fifteenth Amendment.
Ratification by the states
Ratified amendment pre-certification, 1866–1868
Ratified amendment pre-certification after first rejecting it, 1868
Ratified amendment post-certification after first rejecting it, 1869–1976
Ratified amendment post-certification, 1959
Ratified amendment, withdrew ratification (rescission), then re-ratified. Oregon rescinded ratification post-certification and was included in the official count
Territories of the United States in 1868, not yet states
Ratification of the amendment was bitterly contested. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[19] It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before "said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress".[20]
The first twenty-eight states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment were:[21]
Connecticut – June 30, 1866
New Hampshire – July 6, 1866
Tennessee – July 18, 1866
New Jersey – September 11, 1866 (Rescinded ratification – February 20, 1868/March 24, 1868; re-ratified – April 23, 2003)
Oregon – September 19, 1866 (Rescinded ratification – October 16, 1868; re-ratified – April 25, 1973)
Vermont – October 30, 1866
New York – January 10, 1867
Ohio – January 11, 1867 (Rescinded ratification – January 13, 1868; re-ratified – March 12, 2003)
Illinois – January 15, 1867
West Virginia – January 16, 1867
Michigan – January 16, 1867
Minnesota – January 16, 1867
Kansas – January 17, 1867
Maine – January 19, 1867
Nevada – January 22, 1867
Indiana – January 23, 1867
Missouri – January 25, 1867
Pennsylvania – February 6, 1867
Rhode Island – February 7, 1867
Wisconsin – February 13, 1867
Massachusetts – March 20, 1867
Nebraska – June 15, 1867
Iowa – March 16, 1868
Arkansas – April 6, 1868
Florida – June 9, 1868
North Carolina – July 4, 1868 (After rejection – December 14, 1866)
Louisiana – July 9, 1868 (After rejection – February 6, 1867)
South Carolina – July 9, 1868 (After rejection – December 20, 1866)
If rescission by Ohio and New Jersey were invalid, South Carolina would have been the 28th State. Rescission by Oregon did not occur until later. These rescissions caused significant controversy. However, ratification by other states continued during the course of the debate:
Alabama – July 13, 1868
On July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that if withdrawals of ratification by New Jersey and Ohio were ineffective, then the amendment had become part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868, with ratification by South Carolina.[22] The following day, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a concurrent resolution declaring the Fourteenth Amendment to be a part of the Constitution and directing the Secretary of State to promulgate it as such.[23] Both New Jersey and Ohio were named in the congressional resolution as having ratified the amendment, although Alabama was also named, making 29 states total.[24][25]
On the same day, one more State ratified:
Georgia – July 21, 1868 (After rejection – November 9, 1866)
On July 27, Secretary Seward received the formal ratification from Georgia.[26] The following day, July 28, Secretary Seward issued his official proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment.[27] Secretary Seward stated that his proclamation was "in conformance" to the resolution by Congress, but his official list of States included both Alabama and Georgia, as well as Ohio and New Jersey.[28][29]
The inclusion of Ohio and New Jersey has led some to question the validity of rescission of a ratification. The inclusion of Alabama and Georgia has called that conclusion into question. While there have been Supreme Court cases dealing with ratification issues, this particular question has never been adjudicated.
The Fourteenth Amendment was subsequently ratified:[21]
Virginia – October 8, 1869 (after rejection – January 9, 1867)
Mississippi – January 17, 1870
Texas – February 18, 1870 (after rejection – October 27, 1866)
Delaware – February 12, 1901 (after rejection – February 8, 1867)
Maryland – April 4, 1959[30] (after rejection – March 23, 1867)
California – May 6, 1959
Kentucky – March 30, 1976 (after rejection – January 8, 1867)
Since Ohio and New Jersey re-ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 2003, all U.S. states that existed during Reconstruction have ratified the amendment.
Citizenship and civil rights
The two pages of the Fourteenth Amendment in the National Archives
Background
Section 1 of the amendment formally defines United States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor. Abridgment or denial of those civil rights by private persons is not addressed by this amendment; the Supreme Court held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883)[31] that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations (though Congress can sometimes reach such discrimination via other parts of the Constitution). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that "individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."[32]
The Radical Republicans who advanced the Thirteenth Amendment hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people—but its scope was disputed before it even went into effect.[33] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.[34][35] This section was also in response to violence against black people within the Southern States. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.[36]
This first section of the amendment has been the most frequently litigated part of the amendment,[37] and this amendment in turn has been the most frequently litigated part of the Constitution.[38]
Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause
Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, author of the Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship.[39][40] Some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[41] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.[42] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule.
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[43][44] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.[45]
Historian Eric Foner, who has explored the question of U.S. birthright citizenship to other countries, argues that:
Many things claimed as uniquely American—a devotion to individual freedom, for example, or social opportunity—exist in other countries. But birthright citizenship does make the United States (along with Canada) unique in the developed world. [...] Birthright citizenship is one expression of the commitment to equality and the expansion of national consciousness that marked Reconstruction. [...] Birthright citizenship is one legacy of the titanic struggle of the Reconstruction era to create a genuine democracy grounded in the principle of equality.[46]
Native Americans
During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[47]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[48] According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause."[47] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[49][50]
Senator James Rood Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans were subject to United States jurisdiction, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[51] but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the federal government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[52][53] In Elk v. Wilkins (1884),[54] the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[55] The issue was resolved with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted full U.S. citizenship to indigenous peoples.[56]
Children born to citizens of other countries
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that children born in the United States become American citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.[57] At the time of the amendment's passage, three Senators, including Trumbull,[58] the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on such children at birth; however, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania had a definitively contrary opinion.[59][60][61][62] These congressional remarks applied to non-citizens lawfully present in the United States, as the problem of unauthorized immigration did not exist in 1866, and some scholars dispute whether the Citizenship Clause applies to unauthorized immigrants, although the law of the land continues to be based on the standard interpretation.[57] Congress during the 21st century has occasionally discussed revising the clause to reduce the practice of "birth tourism", in which a pregnant foreign national gives birth in the United States for purposes of the child's citizenship.[63]
The clause's meaning with regard to a child of legal immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).[64] The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.[65]
Loss of citizenship
Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:
Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not a loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a citizen of the United States.
Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.[66]
For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[67] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967),[68] as well as Vance v. Terrazas (1980),[69] holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship. However, Congress can revoke citizenship that it had previously granted to a person not born in the United States.[70]
Privileges or Immunities Clause
Main article: Privileges or Immunities Clause
The Privileges or Immunities Clause, which protects the privileges and immunities of national citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV,[71] which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other states.[72] In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873),[72] the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship—"national citizenship" and "state citizenship"—and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship.[72][73] The Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only those rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws."[72] The Court recognized few such rights, including access to seaports and navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration.[72][73] This decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times.[74] Largely as a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter-House opinion, this clause subsequently lay dormant for well over a century.[75]
In Saenz v. Roe (1999),[76] the Court ruled that a component of the "right to travel" is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause:
Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." (emphasis added)
Justice Miller actually wrote in the Slaughter-House Cases that the right to become a citizen of a state (by residing in that state) "is conferred by the very article under consideration" (emphasis added), rather than by the "clause" under consideration.[72][77]
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the majority in incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, declared that he reached this conclusion through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause. Randy Barnett has referred to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion as a "complete restoration" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[78]
Due Process Clause
Main article: Due Process Clause
In the 1884 case of Hurtado v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court said:[79]
Due process of law in the [Fourteenth Amendment] refers to that law of the land in each state which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the state, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and the greatest security for which resides in the right of the people to make their own laws, and alter them at their pleasure.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only against the states, but it is otherwise textually identical to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies against the federal government; both clauses have been interpreted to encompass identical doctrines of procedural due process and substantive due process.[80] Procedural due process is the guarantee of a fair legal process when the government tries to interfere with a person's protected interests in life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process is the guarantee that the fundamental rights of citizens will not be encroached on by government.[81] The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also incorporates most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights, which were originally applied against only the federal government, and applies them against the states.[82]
Substantive due process
Main article: Substantive due process
Beginning with Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897),[83] the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause as providing substantive protection to private contracts, thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation; this principle was referred to as "freedom of contract".[84] Thus, the Court struck down a law decreeing maximum hours for workers in a bakery in Lochner v. New York (1905)[85] and struck down a minimum wage law in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923).[86] In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923),[87] the Court stated that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause
[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.[88]
However, the Court did uphold some economic regulation, such as state Prohibition laws (Mugler v. Kansas, 1887),[89] laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers (Holden v. Hardy, 1898),[90] laws declaring maximum hours for female workers (Muller v. Oregon, 1908),[91] and President Woodrow Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike (Wilson v. New, 1917),[92] as well as federal laws regulating narcotics (United States v. Doremus, 1919).[93] The Court repudiated, but did not explicitly overrule, the "freedom of contract" line of cases in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937).[94]
In Poe v. Ullman (1961), dissenting judge John Marshall Harlan II adopted a broad view of the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause:
[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.[95]
This broad view of liberty was adopted by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut[96] (for further information see below). Although the "freedom of contract" described above has fallen into disfavor, by the 1960s, the Court had extended its interpretation of substantive due process to include other rights and freedoms that are not enumerated in the Constitution but that, according to the Court, extend or derive from existing rights.[84] For example, the Due Process Clause is also the foundation of a constitutional right to privacy. The Court first ruled that privacy was protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law criminalizing birth control.[97] While Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right to privacy was found in the "penumbras" of various provisions in the Bill of Rights, Justices Arthur Goldberg and John Marshall Harlan II wrote in concurring opinions that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause included individual privacy.[98]
The right to privacy was the basis for Roe v. Wade (1973),[99] in which the Court invalidated a Texas law forbidding abortion except to save the mother's life. Like Goldberg's and Harlan's concurring opinions in Griswold, the majority opinion authored by Justice Harry Blackmun located the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause's protection of liberty. The decision disallowed many state and federal abortion restrictions, and it became one of the most controversial in the Court's history.[100] In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),[101] the Court decided that "the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed."[102]
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003),[103] the Court found that a Texas law against same-sex sexual intercourse violated the right to privacy.[104] In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court ruled that the fundamental right to marriage included same-sex couples being able to marry.[105]
Procedural due process
When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision maker. For example, such process is due when a government agency seeks to terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.[106][107] The Court has also ruled that the Due Process Clause requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where the judge has a conflict of interest. For example, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009),[108] the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court.[109]
Incorporation
Main article: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833),[110] the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states.[111] However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation."[82]
Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians.[112] According to legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the same individual rights as the federal government; all of these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment.[113]
By the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states.[114] The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.[115] While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v. Carey.[116] The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states,[115][117] but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause applies not only to federal courts, but also to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal."[118]
Equal Protection Clause
Main article: Equal Protection Clause
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, principal author of the Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause was created largely in response to the lack of equal protection provided by law in states with Black Codes. Under Black Codes, blacks could not sue, give evidence, or be witnesses. They also were punished more harshly than whites.[119] In 1880, the Supreme Court stated in Strauder v. West Virginia that the Equal Protection Clause was
The Clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[120] Although the text of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Equal Protection Clause only against the states, the Supreme Court, since Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), has applied the Clause against the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under a doctrine called "reverse incorporation."[121][122]
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Supreme Court has clarified that the meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would not be limited to discrimination against African Americans, but would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities such as (in this case) legal aliens in the United States who are Chinese citizens:[123][124]
These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
Persons "within its jurisdiction" are entitled to equal protection from a state. Largely because the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV has from the beginning guaranteed the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, the Supreme Court has rarely construed the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in relation to natural persons.[124] In Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Court held that aliens illegally present in a state are within its jurisdiction and may thus raise equal protection claims[124][125] the Court explicated the meaning of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" as follows: "[U]se of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."[125] The Court reached this understanding among other things from Senator Howard, a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the amendment in the Senate. Senator Howard was explicit about the broad objectives of the Fourteenth Amendment and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a state:[125]
The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. [emphasis added by the U.S. Supreme Court][126]
The relationship between the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was addressed by Justice Field in Wong Wing v. United States (1896).[127] He observed with respect to the phrase "within its jurisdiction": "The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. ... The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar—in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[128]
The Supreme Court also decided whether foreign corporations are also within the jurisdiction of a state, ruling that a foreign corporation which sued in a state court in which it was not licensed to do business to recover possession of property wrongfully taken from it in another state was within the jurisdiction and could not be subjected to unequal burdens in the maintenance of the suit.[124] When a state has admitted a foreign corporation to do business within its borders, that corporation is entitled to equal protection of the laws but not necessarily to identical treatment with domestic corporations.[124]
In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the court reporter included a statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in the decision's headnote:
The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.[129]
This dictum, which established that corporations enjoyed personhood under the Equal Protection Clause, was repeatedly reaffirmed by later courts.[129] It remained the predominant view throughout the twentieth century, though it was challenged in dissents by justices such as Hugo Black and William O. Douglas.[130] Between 1890 and 1910, Fourteenth Amendment cases involving corporations vastly outnumbered those involving the rights of blacks, 288 to 19.[131]
In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia, 1880)[132] or discriminating against Chinese Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886),[123] as violations of the Equal Protection Clause. However, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896),[133] the Supreme Court held that the states could impose segregation so long as they provided similar facilities—the formation of the "separate but equal" doctrine.[134]
The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in Berea College v. Kentucky (1908),[135] holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting colleges from having both black and white students. By the early 20th century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments."[136]
Thurgood Marshall served as chief counsel in the landmark Fourteenth Amendment decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reached the Court.[137] In Brown the Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation was inherently harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional. Brown met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce Brown's mandate against repeated attempts at circumvention.[138] This resulted in the controversial desegregation busing decrees handed down by federal courts in various parts of the nation.[139] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), the Court ruled that race could not be the determinative factor in determining to which public schools parents may transfer their children.[140][141]
In Plyler v. Doe (1982) the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying free public education to illegal immigrants as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because discrimination on the basis of illegal immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections.[125][142]
In Hernandez v. Texas (1954), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Negro" and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as Mexican Americans in this case.[143] In the half-century following Brown, the Court extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (United States v. Virginia (1996);[144] Levy v. Louisiana (1968).[145])[146]
The Supreme Court ruled in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)[147] that affirmative action in the form of racial quotas in public university admissions was a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, race could be used as one of several factors without violating of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI.[148] In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)[149] and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003),[150] the Court considered two race-conscious admissions systems at the University of Michigan. The university claimed that its goal in its admissions systems was to achieve racial diversity.[151] In Gratz, the Court struck down a points-based undergraduate admissions system that added points for minority status, finding that its rigidity violated the Equal Protection Clause; in Grutter, the Court upheld a race-conscious admissions process for the university's law school that used race as one of many factors to determine admission.[152] In Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), the Court ruled that before race can be used in a public university's admission policy, there must be no workable race-neutral alternative.[153][154] In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), the Court upheld the constitutionality of a state constitutional prohibition on the state or local use of affirmative action.[155][156]
Reed v. Reed (1971),[157] which struck down an Idaho probate law favoring men, was the first decision in which the Court ruled that arbitrary gender discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.[158] In Craig v. Boren (1976),[159] the Court ruled that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review.[160] Reed and Craig later served as precedents to strike down a number of state laws discriminating by gender.[158]
Since Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)[161] and Reynolds v. Sims (1964),[162] the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats according to "one man, one vote".[163] The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In Shaw v. Reno (1993),[164] the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations.[165]
The Equal Protection Clause served as the basis for the decision in Bush v. Gore (2000),[166] in which the Court ruled that no constitutionally valid recount of Florida's votes in the 2000 presidential election could be held within the needed deadline; the decision effectively secured Bush's victory in the disputed election.[167] In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006),[168] the Court ruled that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of Latinos and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.[169]
State actor doctrine
Main article: State actor
Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution, other than the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, protect not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials.[170] Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948):[171] "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Civil Rights Cases (1883):[31] "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."
Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is "state action" meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental power.[170] In Ex parte Virginia (1880),[172] the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment "have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State."[173]
There are however instances where people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors.[170] In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors when they act as state actors[170] (i.e., acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state). The Court found that the state action doctrine is equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection of the laws.[124]
The critical factor in determining the existence of state action is not governmental involvement with private persons or private corporations, but "the inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself."[173] "Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance."[174]
The Supreme Court asserted that plaintiffs must establish not only that a private party "acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State. [...]" [175] "And the actions are to be attributable to the State apparently only if the State compelled the actions and not if the State merely established the process through statute or regulation under which the private party acted."[124]
The rules developed by the Supreme Court for business regulation are that (1) the "mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment,"[a] and (2) "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must be deemed to be that of the State."[b]
Apportionment of representation in House of Representatives
Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, the basis of representation of each state in the House of Representatives was determined by adding three-fifths of each state's slave population to its free population. Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment.[176] This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as they continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote.[176]
Two solutions were considered:
reduce the Congressional representation of the former slave states (for example, by basing representation on the number of legal voters rather than the number of inhabitants)
guarantee freed slaves the right to vote
On January 31, 1866, the House of Representatives voted in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would reduce a state's representation in the House in proportion to which that state used "race or color" as a basis to deny the right to vote in that state.[176] The amendment failed in the Senate, partly because radical Republicans foresaw that states would be able to use ostensibly race-neutral criteria, such as educational and property qualifications, to disenfranchise the freed slaves without negative consequence. So the amendment was changed to penalize states that denied the vote to male citizens over twenty-one for any reason other than participation in crime. Later, the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee the right to vote could not be denied based on race or color.
The effect of Section 2 was twofold:
Although the three-fifths clause was not formally repealed, it was effectively removed from the Constitution. In the words of the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, Section 2 "abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons [slaves]".
It was intended to penalize, by means of reduced Congressional representation, states that withheld the franchise from adult male citizens for any reason other than participation in crime. This, it was hoped, would induce the former slave states to recognize the political rights of the former slaves, without directly forcing them to do so—something that it was thought the states would not accept.[176]
Enforcement
The first reapportionment after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment occurred in 1873, based on the 1870 census. Congress appears to have attempted to enforce the provisions of Section 2, but was unable to identify enough disenfranchised voters to make a difference to any state's representation.[176] In the implementing statute, Congress added a provision stating that
should any state, after the passage of this Act, deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the amendments to the Constitution, article fourteen, section two, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned in this act to such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.[177]
A nearly identical provision remains in federal law to this day.[178]
Despite this legislation, in subsequent reapportionments, no change has ever been made to any state's Congressional representation on the basis of the Amendment.[176] Bonfield, writing in 1960, suggested that "[t]he hot political nature of such proposals has doomed them to failure".[176] Aided by this lack of enforcement, Southern States continued to use pretexts to prevent many blacks from voting until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[179]
In the Fourth Circuit case of Saunders v Wilkins (1945),[180] Saunders claimed that Virginia should have its Congressional representation reduced because of its use of a poll tax and other voting restrictions. The plaintiff sued for the right to run for Congress at large in the state, rather than in one of its designated Congressional districts. The lawsuit was dismissed as a political question.[176]
Influence
Some have argued that Section 2 was implicitly repealed by the Fifteenth Amendment,[181] but the Supreme Court acknowledged the provisions of Section 2 in some later decisions. In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court cited Section 2 as supporting its conclusion that the right to vote was not among the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" protected by Section 1.[182] In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the Court cited Section 2 as justifying the states disenfranchising felons.[183] In Hunter v. Underwood (1985), a case involving disenfranchising black misdemeanants, the Supreme Court concluded that the Tenth Amendment cannot save legislation prohibited by the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically the Court concluded that laws passed with a discriminatory purpose are not excepted from the operation of the Equal Protection Clause by the "other crime" provision of Section 2. The Court held that Section 2 "was not designed to permit the purposeful racial discrimination [...] which otherwise violates [Section] 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment."[184]
Criticism
Abolitionist leaders criticized the amendment's failure to specifically prohibit the states from denying people the right to vote on the basis of race.[185]
Section 2 protects the right to vote only of adult males, not adult females, making it the only provision of the Constitution to explicitly discriminate on the basis of sex.[35] Section 2 was condemned by women's suffragists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who had long seen their cause as linked to that of black rights. The separation of black civil rights from women's civil rights split the two movements for decades.[186]
Participants in rebellion
Section 3 prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. However, a two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress can override this limitation. In 1898, the Congress enacted a general removal of Section 3's limitation.[187] In 1975, the citizenship of Confederate general Robert E. Lee was restored by a joint congressional resolution, retroactive to June 13, 1865.[188] In 1978, pursuant to Section 3, the Congress posthumously removed the service ban from Confederate president Jefferson Davis.[189]
Section 3 was used to prevent Socialist Party of America member Victor L. Berger, convicted of violating the Espionage Act for his anti-militarist views, from taking his seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920.[190]
Validity of public debt
Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union.[191] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power."[192]
The debt-ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013 raised the question of what is the President's authority under Section 4.[193][194] Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (that is, Social Security and Railroad Retirement Act recipients).[195][196] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[197] Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]".[198] Jack Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale University, opined that like Congress the President is bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, for otherwise, he could violate any part of the amendment at will. Because the President must obey the Section 4 requirement not to put the validity of the public debt into question, Balkin argued that President Obama is obliged "to prioritize incoming revenues to pay the public debt: interest on government bonds and any other 'vested' obligations. What falls into the latter category is not entirely clear, but a large number of other government obligations—and certainly payments for future services—would not count and would have to be sacrificed. This might include, for example, Social Security payments."[194]
Power of enforcement
Main article: Congressional power of enforcement
Section 5, also known as the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, enables Congress to pass laws enforcing the amendment's other provisions.[199][200] In the Civil Rights Cases (1883),[31] the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 narrowly, stating that "the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation". In other words, the amendment authorizes Congress to pass laws only to combat violations of the rights protected in other sections.[201]
In Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966),[202] the Court upheld Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits certain forms of literacy requirements as a condition to vote, as a valid exercise of Congressional power under Section 5 to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled that Section 5 enabled Congress to act both remedially and prophylactically to protect the rights guaranteed by the amendment.[203] However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997),[204] the Court narrowed Congress's enforcement power, holding that Congress may not enact legislation under Section 5 that substantively defines or interprets Fourteenth Amendment rights.[199] The Court ruled that legislation is valid under Section 5 only if there is a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's Fourteenth Amendment right and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.[205]
Selected Supreme Court cases
Citizenship
1884: Elk v. Wilkins
1898: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
1967: Afroyim v. Rusk
1980: Vance v. Terrazas
1982: Plyler v. Doe
Privileges or immunities
1873: Slaughter-House Cases
1875: Minor v. Happersett
1908: Twining v. New Jersey
1920: United States v. Wheeler
1948: Oyama v. California
1999: Saenz v. Roe
Incorporation
1833: Barron v. Baltimore
1873: Slaughter-House Cases
1883: Civil Rights Cases
1884: Hurtado v. California
1897: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago
1900: Maxwell v. Dow
1908: Twining v. New Jersey
1925: Gitlow v. New York
1932: Powell v. Alabama
1937: Palko v. Connecticut
1947: Adamson v. California
1952: Rochin v. California
1961: Mapp v. Ohio
1962: Robinson v. California
1963: Gideon v. Wainwright
1964: Malloy v. Hogan
1967: Reitman v. Mulkey
1968: Duncan v. Louisiana
1969: Benton v. Maryland
1970: Goldberg v. Kelly
1972: Furman v. Georgia
1974: Goss v. Lopez
1975: O'Connor v. Donaldson
1976: Gregg v. Georgia
2010: McDonald v. Chicago
Substantive due process
1876: Munn v. Illinois
1887: Mugler v. Kansas
1897: Allgeyer v. Louisiana
1905: Lochner v. New York
1908: Muller v. Oregon
1923: Adkins v. Children's Hospital
1923: Meyer v. Nebraska
1925: Pierce v. Society of Sisters
1934: Nebbia v. New York
1937: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
1965: Griswold v. Connecticut
1973: Roe v. Wade
1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey
1996: BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
1997: Washington v. Glucksberg
2003: State Farm v. Campbell
2003: Lawrence v. Texas
2015: Obergefell v. Hodges
Equal protection
1880: Strauder v. West Virginia
1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
1896: Plessy v. Ferguson
1908: Berea College v. Kentucky
1917: Buchanan v. Warley
1942: Skinner v. Oklahoma
1944: Korematsu v. United States
1948: Shelley v. Kraemer
1954: Hernandez v. Texas
1954: Brown v. Board of Education
1962: Baker v. Carr
1967: Loving v. Virginia
1971: Reed v. Reed
1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird
1973: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
1976: Examining Board v. Flores de Otero
1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
1982: Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
1986: Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
1996: United States v. Virginia
1996: Romer v. Evans
2000: Bush v. Gore
Felon disenfranchisement
1974: Richardson v. Ramirez
1985: Hunter v. Underwood
Power of enforcement
1883: Civil Rights Cases
1966: Katzenbach v. Morgan
1997: City of Boerne v. Flores
1999: Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank
2000: United States v. Morrison
2000: Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
2001: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
2003: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
2004: Tennessee v. Lane
2013: Shelby County v. Holder
See also
United States constitutional criminal procedure
United States labor law
References
Notes
Jump up ^ Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982). Cf. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972).
Jump up ^ Yaretsky, 457 U.S., at 1004; Flagg Bros., 436 U.S., at 166; Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S., at 357.
Citations
Jump up ^ "Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11–27". National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on June 11, 2013. Retrieved June 11, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Goldstone 2011, p. 22.
Jump up ^ Stromberg, "A Plain Folk Perspective" (2002), p. 111.
Jump up ^ Nelson, William E. (1988). The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine. Harvard University Press. p. 47. ISBN 9780674041424. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
Jump up ^ Stromberg, "A Plain Folk Perspective" (2002), p. 112.
Jump up ^ Foner, Eric. Reconstruction. pp. 199–200. ISBN 0-8071-2234-3.
Jump up ^ Foner 1988, pp. 250–251.
Jump up ^ Castel, Albert E. (1979). The Presidency of Andrew Johnson. American Presidency. Lawrence, Kan.: The Regents Press of Kansas. p. 70. ISBN 0-7006-0190-2.
Jump up ^ Castel, Albert E. (1979). The Presidency of Andrew Johnson. American Presidency. Lawrence, Kan.: The Regents Press of Kansas. p. 71. ISBN 0-7006-0190-2.
Jump up ^ Rosen, Jeffrey. The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).
Jump up ^ Newman, Roger. The Constitution and its Amendments, Vol. 4, p. 8 (Macmillan 1999).
Jump up ^ Goldstone 2011, pp. 22–23.
Jump up ^ Soifer, "Prohibition of Voluntary Peonage" (2012), p. 1614.
Jump up ^ Foner 1988, p. 252.
^ Jump up to: a b c Foner 1988, p. 253.
Jump up ^ James J. Kilpatrick, ed. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government. p. 44.
^ Jump up to: a b Carter, Dan. When the War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South, 1865–1867, pp. 242–243 (LSU Press 1985).
^ Jump up to: a b Graber, "Subtraction by Addition?" (2012), pp. 1501–1502.
Jump up ^ "The Civil War And Reconstruction". Retrieved January 8, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Library of Congress, Thirty-Ninth Congress Session II". Retrieved May 11, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b "Amendment XIV". US Government Printing Office. Archived from the original on June 23, 2013. Retrieved June 23, 2013.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 707.
Jump up ^ Killian, Johnny H.; et al. (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002. Government Printing Office. p. 31. ISBN 9780160723797.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 709.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 710.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 708.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 709.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 710.
Jump up ^ A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library of Congress. p. 711.
Jump up ^ "Amendment of 1868 Ratified by Maryland". The New York Times. April 5, 1959. p. 71.
^ Jump up to: a b c Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).
Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Cases (1883)". Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Prentice Hall. Pearson Education. 2005. Retrieved October 23, 2013.
Jump up ^ Graber, "Subtraction by Addition?" (2012), p. 1523.
Jump up ^ Goldstone 2011, pp. 23–24.
^ Jump up to: a b Eric Foner, "The Second American Revolution", In These Times, September 1987; reprinted in Civil Rights Since 1787, ed. Jonathan Birnbaum & Clarence Taylor, NYU Press, 2000. ISBN 0814782493
Jump up ^ Finkelman, Paul (2003). "John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Akron Law Review. Ssrn.com. 36 (671). Retrieved April 2, 2009.
Jump up ^ Harrell, David and Gaustad, Edwin. Unto A Good Land: A History Of The American People, Volume 1, p. 520 (Eerdmans Publishing, 2005): "The most important, and the one that has occasioned the most litigation over time as to its meaning and application, was Section One."
Jump up ^ Stephenson, D. The Waite Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy, p. 147 (ABC-CLIO, 2003).
Jump up ^ "Tsesis, Alexander, The Inalienable Core of Citizenship: From Dred Scott to the Rehnquist Court". Arizona State Law Journal. 39. 2008. SSRN 1023809  .
Jump up ^ McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3060 (2010) ("This [clause] unambiguously overruled this Court's contrary holding in Dred Scott.")
Jump up ^ Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409 (1968).
Jump up ^ Yen, Chin-Yung. Rights of citizens and persons under the Fourteenth amendment, page 7 (New Era Printing Company 1905).
Jump up ^ Messner, Emily. "Born in the U.S.A. (Part I)", The Debate, The Washington Post (March 30, 2006). Archived November 6, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Pear, Robert (August 7, 1996). "Citizenship Proposal Faces Obstacle in the Constitution". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ Magliocca, Gerard N. (2007). "Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause and Illegal Aliens". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 10: 499–526. SSRN 965268  .
Jump up ^ Foner, Eric (August 27, 2015). "Birthright Citizenship Is the Good Kind of American Exceptionalism". The Nation. The Nation. Retrieved November 12, 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b LaFantasie, Glenn (March 20, 2011) The erosion of the Civil War consensus, Salon Archived March 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893 Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States...If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2897.
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 572.
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2890,2892–4,2896.
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Trumbull, during the debate, said, "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?...We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.... If we want to control the Navajoes or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?.... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another?... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895. Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the U.S. possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.
Jump up ^ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
Jump up ^ Urofsky, Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 1 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512635-1.
Jump up ^ Reid, Kay (September 22, 2012). "Multilayered loyalties: Oregon Indian women as citizens of the land, their tribal nations, and the united States". Oregon Historical Quarterly. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 18, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Lee, Margaret. "Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents", Congressional Research Service (August 12, 2010): "Over the last decade or so, concern about illegal immigration has sporadically led to a re-examination of a long-established tenet of U.S. citizenship, codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and §301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)), that a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. [...] "some scholars argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the children of unauthorized aliens because the problem of unauthorized aliens did not exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was considered in Congress and ratified by the states."
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:
Mr. Cowan: "I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?"
Mr. Trumbull: "Undoubtedly."
...
Mr. Trumbull: "I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."
Mr. Cowan: "The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument."
Mr. Trumbull: "If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European."
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 2891. From the debate on the Civil Rights Act:
Mr. Cowan: "...Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to a society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how many my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit..."
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 2893. From the debate on the Civil Rights Act:
Mr. Johnson: "...Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question. The decision of the courts and doctrine of the commentators is, that every man who is a citizen of the State becomes ipso facto a citizen of the United States; but there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State..."
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891–2 During the debate on the Amendment, Senator John Conness of California declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens.".
Jump up ^ "Veto of the Civil Rights Bill – Teaching American History".
Jump up ^ Peter Grier (August 10, 2010). "14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on June 13, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Jump up ^ Rodriguez, C.M. (2009). "The Second Founding: The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment [PDF]" (PDF). U. Pa. J. Const. L. 11: 1363–1475. Retrieved January 20, 2011.
Jump up ^ U.S. Department of State (February 1, 2008). "Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality". Archived from the original on April 16, 2009. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
Jump up ^ For example, see Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), overruled by Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Jump up ^ Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Jump up ^ Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
Jump up ^ Yoo, John. Survey of the Law of Expatriation, Memorandum Opinion for the Solicitor General (June 12, 2002). Archived June 6, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Berger, Raoul (1997). Government by Judiciary : The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. p. 58. ISBN 0865971447.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
^ Jump up to: a b Beatty, Jack (April 8, 2008). Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865–1900. New York: Vintage Books. p. 135. ISBN 1400032423. Retrieved July 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
Jump up ^ Shaman, Jeffrey. Constitutional Interpretation: Illusion and Reality, p. 248 (Greenwood Publishing 2001).
Jump up ^ Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).
Jump up ^ Bogen, David. Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, p. 104 (Greenwood Publushing 2003).
Jump up ^ Barnett, Randy. Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again.
Jump up ^ Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
Jump up ^ Curry, James A.; Riley, Richard B.; Battiston, Richard M. (2003). "6". Constitutional Government: The American Experience. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. p. 210. ISBN 0-7872-9870-0. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
Jump up ^ Gupta, Gayatri (2009). "Due process". In Folsom, W. Davis; Boulware, Rick. Encyclopedia of American Business. Infobase. p. 134.
^ Jump up to: a b Cord, Robert L. (1987). "The Incorporation Doctrine and Procedural Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment: An Overview". Brigham Young University Law Review (3): 868. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
Jump up ^ Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 169 U.S. 649 (1897).
^ Jump up to: a b "Due Process of Law – Substantive Due Process". West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Thomson Gale. 1998.
Jump up ^ Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
Jump up ^ Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
Jump up ^ Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
Jump up ^ "CRS Annotated Constitution". Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
Jump up ^ Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).
Jump up ^ Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).
Jump up ^ Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917).
Jump up ^ United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919).
Jump up ^ West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
Jump up ^ Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), at 543
Jump up ^ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, at 849
Jump up ^ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Jump up ^ "Griswold v. Connecticut". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1, 2000. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
Jump up ^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Jump up ^ "Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1, 2000. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
Jump up ^ Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Jump up ^ Casey, 505 U.S. at 845–846.
Jump up ^ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Jump up ^ Spindelman, Marc (June 1, 2004). "Surviving Lawrence v. Texas". Michigan Law Review. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 16, 2013.
Jump up ^ Howe, Amy (June 26, 2015). "In historic decision, Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage: In Plain English". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 8, 2015.
Jump up ^ White, Bradford (2008). Procedural Due Process in Plain English. National Trust for Historic Preservation. ISBN 0-89133-573-0.
Jump up ^ See also Mathews v. Eldridge (1976).
Jump up ^ Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
Jump up ^ Jess Bravin; Kris Maher (June 8, 2009). "Justices Set New Standard for Recusals". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2009.
Jump up ^ Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).
Jump up ^ Levy, Leonard W. "Barron v. City of Baltimore 7 Peters 243 (1833)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 13, 2013.
Jump up ^ Foster, James C. (2006). "Bingham, John Armor". In Finkelman, Paul. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. p. 145. ISBN 9780415943420.
Jump up ^ Amar, Akhil Reed (1992). "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment". Yale Law Journal. 101 (6): 1193–1284. doi:10.2307/796923. JSTOR 796923. Archived from the original on October 19, 2008.
Jump up ^ "Duncan v. Louisiana (Mr. Justice Black, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring)". Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute. May 20, 1968. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
^ Jump up to: a b Levy, Leonard (1970). Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights: The Incorporation Theory (American Constitutional and Legal History Series). Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-70029-8.
Jump up ^ 677 F.2d 957 (1982)
Jump up ^ "Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis (1916)". Supreme.justia.com. May 22, 1916. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
Jump up ^ "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation – 1992 Edition --> Amendments to the Constitution --> Seventh Amendment – Civil Trials". U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1992. p. 1464. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
Jump up ^ Goldstone 2011, pp. 20, 23–24.
Jump up ^ Failinger, Marie (2009). "Equal protection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew. The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. ISBN 9781438109916.
Jump up ^ Primus, Richard (May 2004). "Bolling Alone". Columbia Law Review. SSRN 464847  .
Jump up ^ Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)
^ Jump up to: a b Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g "Annotation 18 – Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 – Rights Guaranteed: Equal Protection of the Laws: Scope and application state action". FindLaw for Legal Professionals – Law & Legal Information by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210–16 (1982).
Jump up ^ Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1033 (1866), page 2776
Jump up ^ Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896).
Jump up ^ Wong Wing, 163 U.S. at 242–243 (Justice Field, concurring in part and dissenting in part).
^ Jump up to: a b Johnson, John W. (January 1, 2001). Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. pp. 446–47. ISBN 978-0-415-93755-9. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
Jump up ^ Vile, John R., ed. (2003). "Corporations". Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues: 1789 – 2002. ABC-CLIO. p. 116.
Jump up ^ Logan, Rayford Whittingham (1965). The betrayal of the Negro, from Rutherford B. Hayes to Woodrow Wilson. New York: Collier Books. p. 100.
Jump up ^ Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).
Jump up ^ Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Jump up ^ Abrams, Eve (February 12, 2009). "Plessy/Ferguson plaque dedicated". WWNO (University New Orleans Public Radio). Retrieved April 17, 2009.
Jump up ^ Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908).
Jump up ^ Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. "274 U.S. 200: Buck v. Bell". Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Jump up ^ Patterson, James (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515632-3.
Jump up ^ "Forced Busing and White Flight". Time. September 25, 1978. Retrieved June 17, 2009.
Jump up ^ Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
Jump up ^ Greenhouse, Linda (June 29, 2007). "Justices Limit the Use of Race in School Plans for Integration". The New York Times. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
Jump up ^ "Plyler v. Doe". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
Jump up ^ Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954).
Jump up ^ United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
Jump up ^ Levy v. Louisiana, 361 U.S. 68 (1968).
Jump up ^ Gerstmann, Evan (1999). The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-28860-9.
Jump up ^ Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
Jump up ^ Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America (2001). "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978". Supreme Court Drama: Cases that Changed America. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 27, 2013.
Jump up ^ Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
Jump up ^ Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Jump up ^ Alger, Jonathan (October 11, 2003). "Gratz/Grutter and Beyond: the Diversity Leadership Challenge". University of Michigan. Archived from the original on August 13, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
Jump up ^ Eckes, Susan B. (January 1, 2004). "Race-Conscious Admissions Programs: Where Do Universities Go From Gratz and Grutter?". Journal of Law and Education. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 27, 2013.
Jump up ^ Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
Jump up ^ Howe, Amy (June 24, 2013). "Finally! The Fisher decision in Plain English". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
Jump up ^ Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, 572 U.S. ___ (2014).
Jump up ^ Denniston, Lyle (April 22, 2014). "Opinion analysis: Affirmative action — up to the voters". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 22, 2014.
Jump up ^ Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
^ Jump up to: a b "Reed v. Reed 1971". Supreme Court Drama: Cases that Changed America. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1, 2001. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
Jump up ^ Karst, Kenneth L. (January 1, 2000). "Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 16, 2013.
Jump up ^ Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).
Jump up ^ Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
Jump up ^ Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2007). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. p. 775. ISBN 0-87187-613-2. Wesberry and Reynolds made it clear that the Constitution demanded population-based representational units for the U.S. House of Representatives and both houses of state legislatures....
Jump up ^ Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
Jump up ^ Aleinikoff, T. Alexander; Samuel Issacharoff (1993). "Race and Redistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after Shaw v. Reno". Michigan Law Review. 92 (3): 588–651. doi:10.2307/1289796. JSTOR 1289796.
Jump up ^ Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Jump up ^ "Bush v. Gore". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
Jump up ^ Daniels, Gilda R. (March 22, 2012). "Fred Gray: life, legacy, lessons". Faulkner Law Review. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 12, 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Dunn, Christopher (April 28, 2009). "Column: Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal)". New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) – American Civil Liberties Union of New York State. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
Jump up ^ Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
Jump up ^ Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880).
^ Jump up to: a b Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co, 419 U.S. 345 (1974).
Jump up ^ Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).
Jump up ^ Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978).
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Bonfield, Arthur Earl (1960). "The Right to Vote and Judicial Enforcement of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment". Cornell Law Review. 46 (1).
Jump up ^ "An Act for the Apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the States according to the ninth Census", Forty-Second Congress, Sess. ii, Ch. xi, section 6. February 2, 1872
Jump up ^ 2USC6
Jump up ^ Friedman, Walter (January 1, 2006). "Fourteenth Amendment". Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ 152 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1945)
Jump up ^ Chin, Gabriel J. (2004). "Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth?". Georgetown Law Journal. 92: 259.
Jump up ^
Why this if it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons." They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been elected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens.
Jump up ^ Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974).
Jump up ^ Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985).
Jump up ^ Foner 1988, p. 255.
Jump up ^ Foner 1988, pp. 255–256.
Jump up ^ "Sections 3 and 4: Disqualification and Public Debt". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. June 5, 1933. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Pieces of History: General Robert E. Lee's Parole and Citizenship". Prologue Magazine. The National Archives. 37 (1). 2005.
Jump up ^ Goodman, Bonnie K. (2006). "History Buzz: October 16, 2006: This Week in History". History News Network. Archived from the original on October 19, 2007. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
Jump up ^ "Chapter 157: The Oath As Related To Qualifications", Cannon's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, 6, January 1, 1936
Jump up ^ "Annotation 37 – Fourteenth Amendment Sections 3 and 4 Disqualification and Public Debt". FindLaw. Retrieved October 17, 2013.
Jump up ^ "Perry v. United States 294 U.S. 330 (1935) at 354". Findlaw.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (July 24, 2011). "The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out". The New York Times. Retrieved July 30, 2011. In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still, others say the President may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.
^ Jump up to: a b Balkin, Jack M. "3 ways Obama could bypass Congress". CNN. Retrieved October 16, 2013.
Jump up ^ "Our National Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned,' the Constitution Says". The Atlantic. May 4, 2011.
Jump up ^ Sahadi, Jeanne. "Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional?". CNN Money. Retrieved January 2, 2013.
Jump up ^ Rosen, Jeffrey. "How Would the Supreme Court Rule on Obama Raising the Debt Ceiling Himself?". The New Republic. Retrieved July 29, 2011.
Jump up ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (July 29, 2011). "The Constitution, Obama and raising the debt ceiling". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 30, 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b Engel, Steven A. (October 1, 1999). "The McCulloch theory of the Fourteenth Amendment: City of Boerne v. Flores and the original understanding of section 5". Yale Law Journal. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ Kovalchick, Anthony (February 15, 2007). "Judicial Usurpation of Legislative Power: Why Congress Must Reassert its Power to Determine What is Appropriate Legislation to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment". Chapman Law Review. 10 (1). Retrieved July 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ "FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, p. 40". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
Jump up ^ Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966).
Jump up ^ Eisenberg, Theodore (January 1, 2000). "Katzenbach v. Morgan 384 U.S. 641 (1966)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved June 12, 2013.
Jump up ^ City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
Jump up ^ Flores, 521 U.S., at 507.
Bibliography
Foner, Eric (1988). Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. HarperCollins. ISBN 9780062035868. Preview.
Goldstone, Lawrence (2011). Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865–1903. Walker & Company. ISBN 9780802717924. Preview.
Graber, Mark A. (November 2012). "Subtraction by addition?: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments". Columbia Law Review. Columbia Law School. 112 (7): 1501–1549. JSTOR 41708157. Archived from the original on November 17, 2015. Pdf.
Soifer, Aviam (November 2012). "Federal protection, paternalism, and the virtually forgotten prohibition of voluntary peonage". Columbia Law Review. Columbia Law School. 112 (7): 1607–1639. JSTOR 41708160. Archived from the original on November 17, 2015. Pdf.
Further reading
Bogen, David S. (April 30, 2003). Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313313479. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
Garber, Mark A. (2011). "Foreword: Plus or minus one: the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments". Maryland Law Review, special issue: Symposium – the Maryland Constitutional Law Schmooze. University of Maryland School of Law. 71 (1): 12–20. Pdf.
See also: Symposium: the Maryland Constitutional Law Schmooze special issue of the Maryland Law Review.
Halbrook, Stephen P. (1998). Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275963316. Retrieved March 29, 2013. at Questia
tenBroek, Jacobus (June 1951). "Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: Consummation to Abolition and Key to the Fourteenth Amendment". California Law Review. California Law Review, Inc. via JSTOR. 39 (2): 171–203. doi:10.2307/3478033. JSTOR 3478033. Pdf.
McConnell, Michael W. (May 1995). "Originalism and the desegregation decisions". Virginia Law Review. The Virginia Law Review Association via JSTOR. 81 (4): 947–1140. doi:10.2307/1073539. JSTOR 1073539.
Response to McConnell: Klarman, Michael J. (October 1995). "Response: Brown, originalism, and constitutional theory: a response to Professor Mcconnell". Virginia Law Review. The Virginia Law Review Association via JSTOR. 81 (7): 1881–1936. doi:10.2307/1073643. JSTOR 1073643.
Response to Klarman: McConnell, Michael W. (October 1995). "Reply: The originalist justification for Brown: a reply to Professor Klarman". Virginia Law Review. The Virginia Law Review Association via JSTOR. 81 (7): 1937–1955. doi:10.2307/1073644. JSTOR 1073644.
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Amendments to the Constitution of the United States" (PDF). GPO Access. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 18, 2005. Retrieved September 11, 2005. (PDF, providing text of amendment and dates of ratification)
CRS Annotated Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment and related resources at the Library of Congress
[show]
v
t
e
United States Constitution
Text
(via Wikisource)
Preamble and Articles I–VII
Amendments 1–10
Amendments 11–27
Unsuccessful Proposed Amendments
Debates in State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution
Preamble
and articles
Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Amendments
Ratified
Bill of Rights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Others
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pending
Congressional Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin Amendment
Child Labor
Repealed
Eighteenth Amendment
Unsuccessful
Equal Rights
District of Columbia Voting Rights
List of Amendments
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10)
Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13–15)
Amendment proposals in Congress
Convention to propose amendments
State ratifying conventions
Formation
History
Articles of Confederation
Mount Vernon Conference
Annapolis Convention
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Connecticut Compromise
Three-Fifths Compromise
Committee of Detail
Signing
Independence Hall
Syng inkstand
The Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Massachusetts Compromise
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Hillsborough Convention
Rhode Island ratification
Drafting and ratification timeline
Clauses
Appointments
Appropriations
Assistance of Counsel
Bills of credit
Case or Controversy
Citizenship
Commerce
Compact
Compulsory Process
Confrontation
Contract
Copyright and Patent
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment
Exceptions
Excessive Bail
Ex post facto
Extradition
Free Exercise
Free Speech
Fugitive Slave
Full Faith and Credit
General Welfare
Guarantee
Impeachment
Import-Export
Ineligibility
Militia
Natural-born citizen
Necessary and Proper
New States
No Religious Test
Oath or Affirmation
Origination
Petition
Postal
Presentment
Privileges and Immunities
Privileges or Immunities
Recommendation
Self-Incrimination
Speech or Debate
Speedy Trial
State of the Union
Supremacy
Suspension
Take Care
Takings
Taxing and Spending
Territorial
Title of Nobility
Treaty
Trial by Jury
Vesting
Vicinage
War Powers
List of clauses
Interpretation
Concurrent powers
Congressional enforcement
Constitutional law
Criminal procedure
Criminal sentencing
Dormant Commerce Clause
Enumerated powers
Equal footing
Executive privilege
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Judicial review
Nondelegation doctrine
Preemption
Saxbe fix
Separation of church and state
Separation of powers
Taxation power
Unitary executive theory
Display
and legacy
National Archives
Charters of Freedom Rotunda
Independence Mall
Constitution Day
Constitution Gardens
National Constitution Center
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
A More Perfect Union (film)
Worldwide influence
US Government Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book
[hide]
v
t
e
United States Fourteenth Amendment case law
[show]
Citizenship Clause
Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perez v. Brownell (1958)
Saenz v. Roe (1964)
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
Rogers v. Bellei (1971)
[show]
Due Process Clause
Economic substantive
due process
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Coppage v. Kansas (1915)
Adams v. Tanner (1917)
Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
Right to privacy
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Doe v. Bolton (1973)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
Right to abortion
United States v. Vuitch (1971)
Doe v. Bolton (1973)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
H. L. v. Matheson (1981)
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (2006)
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
Civil rights liability
under Section 1983
Monroe v. Pape (1961)
McNeese v. Board of Educ. (1963)
Pierson v. Ray (1967)
Jenkins v. McKeithen (1969)
Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974)
Wood v. Strickland (1975)
O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975)
Paul v. Davis (1976)
Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978)
Procunier v. Navarette (1978)
Owen v. City of Independence (1980)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Felder v. Casey (1988)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989)
Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002)
Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)
Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010)
Connick v. Thompson (2011)
Other
Holden v. Hardy (1898)
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
Buck v. Bell (1927)
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
In re Winship (1971)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Troxel v. Granville (2000)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
[show]
Equal Protection Clause
United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
Lum v. Rice (1927)
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
Perez v. Sharp (1948)
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. (1948)
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Hernandez v. Texas (1954)
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964)
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson (1971)
Reed v. Reed (1971)
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Milliken v. Bradley (1974)
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Romer v. Evans (1996)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
[hide]
v
t
e
United States criminal due process case law
[show]
Reasonable doubt
Leland v. Oregon (1952)
Holland v. United States (1954)
Leary v. United States (1969)
In re Winship (1970)
Cool v. United States (1972)
Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975)
Patterson v. New York (1977)
Taylor v. Kentucky (1978)
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen (1979)
Sandstrom v. Montana (1979)
Jackson v. Virginia (1979)
Murray v. Carrier (1986)
Cage v. Louisiana (1990)
Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993)
Victor v. Nebraska (1994)
Schlup v. Delo (1995)
[show]
Brady disclosure
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
Giglio v. United States (1972)
Moore v. Illinois (1972)
United States v. Agurs (1976)
California v. Trombetta (1984)
United States v. Bagley (1985)
Arizona v. Youngblood (1988)
Kyles v. Whitley (1995)
Wood v. Bartholomew (1995)
Strickler v. Greene (1999)
United States v. Ruiz (2002)
Illinois v. Fisher (2004)
Banks v. Dretke (2004)
Youngblood v. West Virginia (2006)
Cone v. Bell (2009)
Smith v. Cain (2012)
[show]
Mental competence
Bishop v. United States (1956)
Dusky v. United States (1960)
Pate v. Robinson (1966)
Drope v. Missouri (1975)
Riggins v. Nevada (1992)
Medina v. California (1992)
Godinez v. Moran (1993)
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)
Sell v. United States (2003)
Indiana v. Edwards (2008)
[show]
Prosecutorial misconduct
Mooney v. Holohan (1935)
Hysler v. Florida (1942)
Pyle v. Kansas (1942)
New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson (1943)
White v. Ragen (1945)
Mesarosh v. United States (1956)
Alcorta v. Texas (1957)
Napue v. Illinois (1959)
[show]
v
t
e
Immigration to the United States and related topics
Relevant colonial era,
United States and
international laws
Colonial era
Nationality law in the American Colonies
Plantation Act 1740
18th century
Naturalization Act 1790 / 1795 / 1798
19th century
Naturalization Law 1802
Civil Rights Act of 1866
14th Amendment (1868)
Naturalization Act 1870
Page Act (1875)
Immigration Act of 1882
Chinese Exclusion (1882)
Scott Act (1888)
Immigration Act of 1891
Geary Act (1892)
1900–1949
Naturalization Act 1906
Gentlemen's Agreement (1907)
Immigration Act of 1907
Immigration Act 1917 (Asian Barred Zone)
Emergency Quota Act (1921)
Cable Act (1922)
Immigration Act 1924
Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934)
Filipino Repatriation Act (1935)
Nationality Act of 1940
Bracero Program (1942–1964)
Magnuson Act (1943)
War Brides Act (1945)
Luce–Celler Act (1946)
1950–1999
UN Refugee Convention (1951)
Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 / 1965
Refugee Act (1980)
Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986)
American Homecoming Act (1989)
Immigration Act 1990
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) (1996)
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1997)
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) (1998)
21st century
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) (2000)
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) (2000)
H-1B Visa Reform Act (2004)
REAL ID Act (2005)
Secure Fence Act (2006)
DACA (2012)
Executive Order 13769 (2017)
Executive Order 13780 (2017)
Visas and policies
Visa policy
Permanent residence
Visa Waiver Program
Temporary protected status
Asylum
Green Card Lottery
US-VISIT
Security Advisory Opinion
E-Verify
Section 287(g)
National Origins Formula
Government
organizations
Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
Board of Immigration Appeals
Supreme Court cases
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923)
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011)
Related issues
and events
Economic impact
Eugenics in the United States
Guest worker program
Human trafficking
Human smuggling
Coyotaje
Immigration reform
Immigration reduction
Mexico–United States barrier
Labor shortage
March for America
Illegal immigrant population
Reverse immigration
2006 protests
Unaccompanied minors from Central America
List of people deported from the United States
Geography
Mexico–United States border
Canada–United States border
United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints
Proposed legislation
DREAM Act (2001–2010)
H.R. 4437 (2005)
McCain–Kennedy (2005)
SKIL (2006)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2006
STRIVE Act (2007)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 2007
Uniting American Families Act (2000–2013)
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
SAFE Act (2015)
RAISE Act (2017)
Immigration stations
and points of entry
Angel Island
Castle Garden
East Boston
Ellis Island
Sullivan's Island
Washington Avenue
Operations
"Wetback" (1954)
"Peter Pan" (1960–1962)
"Babylift" (1975)
"Gatekeeper" (1994)
"Endgame" (2003–2012)
"Front Line" (2004–2005)
"Streamline" (2005–present)
"Return to Sender" (2006–2007)
"Jump Start" (2006–2008)
State legislation
California DREAM Act (2006–2010)
Arizona SB 1070 (2010)
Alabama HB 56 (2011)
Non-governmental
organizations
Arizona Border Recon
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
National Immigration Forum
Center for Community Change
We Are America Alliance
CASA of Maryland
Mexica Movement
Mexicans Without Borders
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Minuteman Project
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
California Coalition for Immigration Reform
Save Our State
Center for Immigration Studies
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
NumbersUSA
Negative Population Growth
Migration Policy Institute
Utah Compact
Center for Migration Studies of New York
[show]
v
t
e
Voting rights in the United States
Constitutional
provisions
Article I
Voter Qualifications Clause
Elections Clause
1st Amendment
14th Amendment
Equal Protection Clause
15th Amendment
17th Amendment
19th Amendment
23rd Amendment
24th Amendment
26th Amendment
Federal laws
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Amendments
List of covered jurisdictions
Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act
National Voter Registration Act of 1993
Help America Vote Act of 2002
State laws
Voter access
Absentee ballot
Early voting
Postal voting
Provisional ballot
Voter registration in the U.S.
Initiatives and referendums
Recall election
Vote denial
Electoral fraud
Grandfather clause
Literacy test
Poll tax
Voter caging
Voter ID laws
Vote dilution
Gerrymandering
Plurality-at-large voting
One man, one vote
By group
Women
Youth
Felons
Foreigners
Transgender people
District of Columbia residents
Puerto Rico residents
Guam residents
History
Timeline
Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era
Selma to Montgomery marches
Timeline of women's suffrage
Woman Suffrage Parade of 1913
Silent Sentinels
U.S. suffragists
publications
History of direct democracy
Related
Ballot access
Campaign finance
Citizenship
Disfranchisement
Election
Election law
Elections
Electoral reform
Electoral College
Redistricting
Secret ballot
Suffrage
Voting
Voting system
Voter registration
National Voting Rights Museum
[show]
v
t
e
History of the United States
Timeline
Prehistory
Pre-Columbian
Colonial
America's Critical Period
1776–89
1789–1849
1849–65
1865–1918
1918–45
1945–64
1964–80
1980–91
1991–2008
2008–present
Topics
American Century
Cities
Constitution
Demographic
Diplomatic
Economic
Education
Immigration
Medical
Merchant Marine
Military
Musical
Religious
Slavery
Southern
Technological and industrial
Territorial acquisitions
Territorial evolution
Voting rights
Women
Category
Portal
Authority control
WorldCat Identities
VIAF: 181043601
LCCN: n83003571
GND: 4243024-0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=817593514"
Categories:
1868 in American law
1868 in American politics
Aftermath of the American Civil War
Amendments to the United States Constitution
History of civil rights in the United States
Reconstruction Era
United States Fourteenth Amendment case law
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Subscription required using via
Pages containing links to subscription-only content
CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism
Wikipedia indefinitely move-protected pages
Use mdy dates from October 2017
Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Good articles
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
View source
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Ænglisc
Беларуская
Català
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 29 December 2017, at 10:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: This is a good article. Follow the link for more information.

attrs: href title

values: mw-indicator-good-star mw-indicator

values: This article is semi-protected due to vandalism

values: mw-indicator-pp-default mw-indicator

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: td

value: tr

value: th

values: Greater coat of arms of the United States.svg

values: Preamble to the United States Constitution

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values: Article Four of the United States Constitution

values: Article Five of the United States Constitution

values: Article Six of the United States Constitution

values: Article Seven of the United States Constitution

values: List of amendments to the United States Constitution

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

values: History of the United States Constitution

values: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

values: Signing of the United States Constitution

values: s:Constitution of the United States of America

values: s:Additional amendments to the United States Constitution

values: s:Portal:Unsuccessful attempts to amend the United States Constitution

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top:1px #aaa solid; border-bottom:1px #aaa solid;

values: Template talk:US Constitution article series

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: United States presidential election, 2000

values: History of the United States Republican Party

values: United States Congress Joint Committee on Reconstruction

values:
/wiki/John_A._Bingham
mw-redirect
John A. Bingham

values:
/wiki/Radical_Republicans
mw-redirect
Radical Republicans

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #0050ff; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid-column

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #2896aa; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #d500ff; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #00ff74; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #ffe680; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #b8b8b8; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: National Archives and Records Administration

values:
/wiki/Illegal_immigrants
mw-redirect
Illegal immigrants

values: United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

values:
/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924
mw-redirect
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

values:
/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
mw-redirect
McDonald v. Chicago

values:
/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_v._Parrish
mw-redirect
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

values: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

values:
/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar
mw-redirect
Akhil Reed Amar

values:
/wiki/Indictment_Clause
mw-redirect
Indictment Clause

values: Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

values:
/wiki/Reverse_incorporation
mw-redirect
Reverse incorporation

values: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

values:
/wiki/Chinese_American
mw-redirect
Chinese American

values:
/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.
mw-redirect
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

values:
/wiki/Mexican_American
mw-redirect
Mexican American

values: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

values: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

values: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry

values: Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives

values:
/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
mw-redirect
Three-fifths compromise

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

values:
/wiki/Treason_in_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Treason in the United States

values:
/wiki/Espionage_Act
mw-redirect
Espionage Act

values: Unseated members of the United States Congress

values: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011

values: United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013

values:
/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Act
mw-redirect
Railroad Retirement Act

values: University of California, Irvine School of Law

values: div-col columns column-count column-count-2

values: -moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;

values: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago

values: div-col columns column-count column-count-3

values: -moz-column-count: 3; -webkit-column-count: 3; column-count: 3;

values:
/wiki/State_Farm_v._Campbell
mw-redirect
State Farm v. Campbell

values: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

values: Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

values: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

values: Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs

values: United States constitutional criminal procedure

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 419

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457

values: Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (page does not exist)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 407

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: lower-alpha;

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 109

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=1023809

values: University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=965268

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 112

values: font-size:0.95em; font-size: 90%; color: #555

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 169

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 356

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 387

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 444

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 83

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 529

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 526

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 198

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 261

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 262

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 123

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 208

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 243

values: United States v. Doremus (page does not exist)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 249

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 300

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 381

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 410

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 505

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 539

values: National Trust for Historic Preservation

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 556

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 32

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F796923

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/796923

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=464847

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 118

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 163

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 100

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 211

values: Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 551

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 518

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 361

values:
/wiki/University_Of_Chicago_Press
mw-redirect
University Of Chicago Press

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 438

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 570

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=165685

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 572

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 404

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 429

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 376

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 377

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1289796

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1289796

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 531

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 548

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 365

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 436

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 418

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 471

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 384

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 521

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/41708157

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/41708160

values:
nofollow
external text
https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3478033

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3478033

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/3478033

values:
nofollow
external text
https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073539

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1073539

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1073539

values:
nofollow
external text
https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073643

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1073643

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1073643

values:
nofollow
external text
https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073644

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1073644

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1073644

values: commons:Category:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: s:Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

values: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Ratification of the United States Constitution by Rhode Island

values:
/wiki/Guarantee_Clause
mw-redirect
Guarantee Clause

values: Oath of office of the President of the United States

values: List of clauses of the United States Constitution

values: United States constitutional sentencing law

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

values: Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States

values: United States Constitution and worldwide influence

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health

values: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England

values:
/wiki/Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
mw-redirect
Second Enforcement Act of 1871

values: McNeese v. Board of Educ. (page does not exist)

values: Jenkins v. McKeithen (page does not exist)

values: Wood v. Strickland (page does not exist)

values: Procunier v. Navarette (page does not exist)

values: Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

values: Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee

values: Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.

values: Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County

values: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

values: nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-inner

values: Holland v. United States (page does not exist)

values: Cool v. United States (page does not exist)

values: Taylor v. Kentucky (page does not exist)

values: County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen (page does not exist)

values: Jackson v. Virginia (page does not exist)

values: Sullivan v. Louisiana (page does not exist)

values: Victor v. Nebraska (page does not exist)

values: United States v. Agurs (page does not exist)

values: California v. Trombetta (page does not exist)

values: United States v. Bagley (page does not exist)

values: Wood v. Bartholomew (page does not exist)

values: Strickler v. Greene (page does not exist)

values: United States v. Ruiz (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Illinois_v._Fisher
mw-redirect
Illinois v. Fisher

values:
/wiki/Youngblood_v._West_Virginia
mw-redirect
Youngblood v. West Virginia

values:
/wiki/Bishop_v._United_States
mw-redirect
Bishop v. United States

values: Medina v. California (page does not exist)

values: New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson (page does not exist)

values: Mesarosh v. United States (page does not exist)

values: Template:Immigration to the United States

values: Template talk:Immigration to the United States

values: Nationality law in the American Colonies

values: Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

values: Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

values: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

values: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act

values: American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act

values: American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act

values: Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g)

values: United States Department of Homeland Security

values: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

values:
/wiki/U.S._Border_Patrol
mw-redirect
U.S. Border Patrol

values: Category:United States immigration and naturalization case law

values: Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States

values: Immigration reduction in the United States

values: Illegal immigrant population of the United States

values: Reverse immigration in the United States

values: 2006 United States immigration reform protests

values: List of people deported or removed from the United States

values: United States Border Patrol interior checkpoints

values: Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005

values: Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

values: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

values: Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007

values: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

values: Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

values: Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

values:
/wiki/CASA_of_Maryland
mw-redirect
CASA of Maryland

values: Federation for American Immigration Reform

values: California Coalition for Immigration Reform

values: National Korean American Service & Education Consortium

values: Center for Migration Studies of New York

values: Template:Voting rights in the United States

values: Template talk:Voting rights in the United States

values: Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

values: List of jurisdictions subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

values: Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act

values: Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

values: Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act

values: Initiatives and referendums in the United States

values:
/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Poll tax (United States)

values: Right of foreigners to vote in the United States

values: Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States

values: Timeline of voting rights in the United States

values: Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era

values: Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States

values:
/wiki/Woman_Suffrage_Parade_of_1913
mw-redirect
Woman Suffrage Parade of 1913

values: History of direct democracy in the United States

values:
/wiki/Voting_system
mw-redirect
Voting system

values: History of the United States (1789–1849)

values: History of the United States (1865–1918)

values: History of the United States (1991–2008)

values: History of the United States (2008–present)

values: Category:Histories of cities in the United States

values: Demographic history of the United States

values: Timeline of United States diplomatic history

values: History of education in the United States

values: History of immigration to the United States

values: History of medicine in the United States

values: History of the United States Merchant Marine

values: History of religion in the United States

values: Technological and industrial history of the United States

values: Territorial evolution of the United States

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
nofollow
external text
https://viaf.org/viaf/181043601

values:
nofollow
external text
https://d-nb.info/gnd/4243024-0

values: Category:Aftermath of the American Civil War

values: Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Category:History of civil rights in the United States

values: Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Subscription required using via

values: Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content

values: Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism

values: Category:Wikipedia indefinitely move-protected pages

values: Category:Use mdy dates from October 2017

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values:
This page is protected.
You can view its source [ctrl-alt-e]

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: Fēowertēoþa Gebētung þære Grundgesetnesse þāra Geānedra Rīca American – Old English

values: Чатырнаццатая папраўка да Канстытуцыі ЗША – Belarusian

values: Catorzena esmena de la Constitució dels Estats Units – Catalan

values: 14. Zusatzartikel zur Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten – German

values: Decimocuarta Enmienda a la Constitución de los Estados Unidos – Spanish

values: متمم چهاردهم قانون اساسی ایالات متحده آمریکا – Persian

values: Quatorzième amendement de la Constitution des États-Unis – French

values: 미국 수정 헌법 제14조 – Korean

values: XIV emendamento della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti d'America – Italian

values: התיקון ה-14 לחוקת ארצות הברית – Hebrew

values: Veertiende amendement van de grondwet van de Verenigde Staten – Dutch

values: アメリカ合衆国憲法修正第14条 – Japanese

values: 14. poprawka do Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych – Polish

values: Четырнадцатая поправка к Конституции США – Russian

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple English

values: Yhdysvaltain perustuslain 14. lisäys – Finnish

values: Чотирнадцята поправка до Конституції США – Ukrainian

values: 美利坚合众国宪法第十四条修正案 – Chinese

values: interlanguage-link interwiki-zh badge-Q17437796 badge-featuredarticle

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution rootpage-Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution skin-vector action-view