Omar Bennett
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, was designed to grant full citizenship rights to formerly enslaved people and expand the protection of civil rights for all Americans. While the Constitution does not address private discrimination, the Court has acted in cases where the state has been involved in discrimination to some significant extent. This includes cases where state policies or regulations have indirectly encouraged discrimination, such as in the segregation of dining spaces in Florida and statements made by New Orleans city officials endorsing local segregation customs. The 14th Amendment has also been interpreted to grant certain rights to corporations, such as freedom of speech and the right to spend unlimited funds on ballot initiatives. These interpretations have been controversial, with some arguing that corporations are artificial persons and should not be granted the same rights as natural persons.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Court rulings on equal protection | The 14th Amendment's guarantee of "due process" has been used as a basis for Supreme Court rulings that impact Americans' lives. For example, in the 1978 Bellotti decision, corporations were granted the right to unlimited political spending as part of their First Amendment rights. |
| Commercial speech rights | The Court has acknowledged that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment and plays an important role in sharing information with consumers. The Central Hudson case established a four-part test to determine if restrictions on commercial speech are constitutional. |
| State involvement in segregation | The Court has acted in cases where states have been involved in segregation, such as in Florida and New Orleans, where regulations discouraged serving people of different races together. These cases violated equal protection, and convictions of patrons who refused to follow segregation rules were overturned. |
| Taxation | Initially, the Court did not consider the Equal Protection Clause relevant to taxation. However, this changed, and the Court entertained cases challenging specific tax laws under this provision, conceding that "clear and hostile discriminations" against particular persons or classes may violate the constitutional prohibition. |
| Economic regulation | The Court has ruled on cases involving economic regulation and equal protection, such as invalidating a statute that forbade stock insurance companies from acting through salaried employees but permitted mutual companies to do so. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourteenth Amendment and corporate personhood
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, was designed to protect the civil rights of all Americans and prevent states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process. It also includes the Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law.
The concept of corporate personhood, however, has extended certain constitutional protections to corporations, treating them as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment. This interpretation stems from the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which Chief Justice Waite stated that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to corporations. While this statement was not part of the formal opinion, later cases cited it as precedent.
Corporate personhood allows companies to hold property, enter contracts, and sue and be sued like individuals. Some critics, including Supreme Court justices, argue that corporate personhood is inconsistent with the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. They contend that certain human rights, such as the right to marry or vote, should not apply to corporations. Additionally, critics highlight the potential dangers of granting corporations political rights, such as the right to make unlimited political expenditures, as affirmed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
The expansion of corporate personhood has led to ongoing debates and calls for a constitutional amendment to abolish it. Supporters of corporate personhood argue that it protects the rights of businesses and shareholders against arbitrary state action. However, critics advocate for a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution, excluding corporations from the protections afforded to natural persons under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Crafting Effective Constitutions: Drafting and Promulgation
You may want to see also
Commercial speech rights
The recognition of commercial speech rights in the US has evolved over time. Initially, in the 1942 Valentine v. Chrestensen ruling, the Supreme Court held that commercial speech in public was not protected by the First Amendment. However, this precedent was overturned in the 1975 case of Bigelow v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court acknowledged that advertisements qualified for First Amendment protection. Subsequently, in the 1980 case of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the Court established a four-part test to determine whether commercial speech regulations violate the First Amendment. This test considers the lawfulness and truthfulness of the commercial speech, the government's interest in regulating it, and the extent to which the regulation serves that interest.
The application of commercial speech rights has been further elaborated through various court cases. For example, in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996), a Rhode Island law restricting liquor advertisements was struck down as it infringed on the public's right to information about a legal product. Similarly, in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc., the Court upheld the right of businesses to share pricing information and consumers' right to receive it. In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. (1983), the Court extended First Amendment protection to a contraceptive ad, despite its commercial nature, due to the inclusion of information about sexually transmitted diseases and family planning.
The European Court of Human Rights has also played a role in shaping commercial speech rights. For instance, in Barthold v. Germany (1985), the Court held that prohibiting a veterinary surgeon from advocating for 24-hour animal clinics violated his free expression rights. The Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany case further emphasised the importance of freedom of speech in a commercial context. While these cases demonstrate a recognition of commercial speech rights, it's important to note that commercial speech remains subject to certain restrictions, particularly when compared to non-commercial forms of expression.
McDonald v. Chicago: The Constitutional Clause in Focus
You may want to see also
Discrimination and equal protection
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, stating:
> "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."
The Equal Protection Clause is a crucial component of civil rights protection, empowering individuals to take legal action against the federal or state government if they believe their guaranteed equal rights have been violated. To prove discrimination, the individual must demonstrate that the governing body's actions resulted in actual harm to them. The court will then scrutinize the government's actions through strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis scrutiny, depending on legal precedent.
The Equal Protection Clause has been central to numerous landmark Supreme Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which helped dismantle racial segregation, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriages. The clause has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, immigration status, and wedlock status at birth, with ongoing debates about the inclusion of sexual orientation.
While the Equal Protection Clause applies to state and local governments, the Supreme Court has also interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to require equal protection under federal laws. This interpretation has been used to challenge discrimination in various contexts, including education, employment, and government contracting.
The Equal Protection Clause has also been invoked to address discrimination by private businesses, with the Court acting if there is significant state involvement or endorsement of discriminatory practices. For example, the Court has overturned convictions of Black patrons who refused to comply with segregation regulations in restaurants and has found constitutional violations when businesses leasing public property refused service to Black patrons.
In conclusion, the Equal Protection Clause is a powerful tool for ensuring equality and combating discrimination. Its interpretation and application by the Supreme Court have evolved over time, addressing racial segregation, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and other issues of equality. While the primary focus of the Fourteenth Amendment has been on corporations, the Equal Protection Clause has played a significant role in expanding civil rights and challenging discrimination in various spheres of American life.
Commerce Clause: Powering Trade and the Economy
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State involvement in private businesses
The Fourteenth Amendment has played a significant role in extending certain rights to corporations, treating them as "people" with specific protections. This has led to debates about corporate personhood and the expanding interpretation of their rights, including freedom of speech and religious grounds. The Court has acknowledged the importance of commercial speech and granted it First Amendment protection, establishing the Central Hudson test to determine the constitutionality of commercial speech restrictions.
While the state has a role in regulating business and industry, it must do so without violating the rights of citizens. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that laws do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens and that all persons are treated equally under the law. This includes ensuring that state policies do not encourage segregation or create undue burdens on businesses serving diverse populations. The Court's decisions in cases involving Florida's segregation regulations and New Orleans city officials' statements highlight their commitment to upholding equal protection.
Minnesota Supreme Court: Interpreting the Constitution
You may want to see also
Constitutionality of restrictions on commercial speech
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech. However, commercial speech, or speech created for the purpose of generating revenue, had little to no First Amendment protection until about 50 years ago. Starting in the mid-1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court began to set limits on the government's ability to prohibit, restrict, or compel commercial speech.
In 1978, the Supreme Court affirmed restrictions on in-person solicitation of clients by attorneys in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association. The issue in this case was not the advertising or marketing itself, but the way in which the lawyer went about doing it. The Court reached a similar conclusion in 2007 when it upheld a rule prohibiting high school coaches from recruiting middle school students.
In 1980, the Court developed a framework for regulating commercial speech for the first time in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. The Court held that courts should apply "intermediate scrutiny" to laws restricting commercial speech, which is the middle level of judicial review in U.S. constitutional law. The Central Hudson case established a four-part test to determine whether a restriction on commercial speech violates the First Amendment:
- Does the commercial speech at issue involve lawful activity?
- Is it misleading?
- Has the government asserted a "substantial" interest in support of the regulation?
- Does the regulation "directly advance" the government's interest, and is it more extensive than necessary to serve that interest?
The Court's current commercial speech doctrine does not require the least restrictive means, and it has upheld several commercial speech restrictions under this intermediate scrutiny standard. For example, in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a state regulation restricting person-to-person solicitation of clients by attorneys.
In 1985, the Supreme Court identified a test for the constitutionality of compelled commercial speech in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Under the Zauderer standard, compelled commercial speech does not violate the First Amendment when the information to be disclosed is "purely factual and uncontroversial."
Memorizing the Constitution Preamble Made Easy
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It states that "No State shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Yes, the Equal Protection Clause applies to corporations as well as individuals, thanks to a legal concept known as corporate personhood.
Corporate personhood is a controversial legal concept that grants corporations some of the same rights as individuals, such as the right to freedom of speech and the right to spend unlimited funds on ballot initiatives.
Yes, in some cases. For example, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court granted the right of closely-held companies to file for exemptions to federal laws on religious grounds.
While the Constitution does not cover private discrimination, the Court will act if the state is involved. For example, the Court has found state action and a constitutional violation when a restaurant leasing city property refused to serve a Black patron.
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/711lR4w+ZNL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
