Isabella Carter
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution does not shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. However, it does prohibit state action that impairs the privileges and immunities of US citizens, or injures them in life, liberty or property without due process. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can sometimes enact remedial legislation that prohibits conduct that is not itself unconstitutional. For example, in Norwood v. Harrison, the Court struck down the provision of free textbooks by a state to racially segregated private schools. In another case, Reitman, the Court struck down an amendment to the California Constitution that prohibited the state and its agencies from forbidding racial discrimination in private housing.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The provision of the US Constitution that prohibits private conduct | Fourteenth Amendment |
| What it means | 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 |
| Example 1 | In Norwood v. Harrison, the Court struck down the provision of free textbooks by a state to racially segregated private schools |
| Example 2 | In Reitman, the Court struck down an amendment to the California Constitution that prohibited the state and its subdivisions and agencies from forbidding racial discrimination in private housing |
| Exception | The Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery |
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
The Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery and prohibited involuntary servitude within the United States and all areas under its jurisdiction. The text of the amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." This amendment provided a final constitutional solution to the issue of slavery, which had persisted despite President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Thirteenth Amendment as empowering Congress to address the "badges and incidents of slavery," including racial discrimination. However, in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Court ruled that the amendment did not ban most forms of racial discrimination by non-government actors. This interpretation has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that the amendment should protect freedoms beyond physical restraint.
The Thirteenth Amendment, along with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, significantly expanded the civil rights of Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, defined citizenship and mandated equal protection under the law, while the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited racial voting restrictions. These amendments provided additional protections to ensure the abolition of slavery and promote equal rights for all citizens.
Folding the US Constitution: Pocket-Sized Guide
You may want to see also
Fourteenth Amendment and state action
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution deals with citizens' privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection under the law. The State Action Doctrine interprets the Fourteenth Amendment and applies it to federalism.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action that impairs citizens' privileges and immunities, denies due process, or denies equal protection under the law. State action is not limited to situations in which state law authorises discriminatory action. For example, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court found unconstitutional state action in the discriminatory administration of an ordinance that was fair and non-discriminatory on its face. The actions of state officers and agents are attributable to the state. In United States v. Price (1966), it was held that one need not be an employee of the state to act under state law; mere participation in an act with state officers is enough.
The Court has also found that a state amendment prohibiting state agencies from forbidding racial discrimination in private housing denies equal protection of the laws. In Reitman v. Mulkey, the Court struck down an amendment to the California Constitution that prohibited state agencies from forbidding racial discrimination in private housing. The Court found that the provision constituted state action that encouraged private racial discrimination.
In cases where a private individual discriminates, the question is whether a state has encouraged or impermissibly aided the effort. For example, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), property owners brought suit to enforce a racially restrictive covenant, seeking to prevent the sale of a home by white sellers to black buyers. The Court found that the covenants, standing alone, violated no rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), the Court struck down a state's provision of free textbooks to racially segregated private schools, finding that any tangible state assistance that facilitates and supports private discrimination is constitutionally prohibited.
Citing the Constitution: MLA Style Guide
You may want to see also
Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868. It extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people, granting citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". This amendment was a major step in guaranteeing equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens following the Civil War.
One of the most important provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment is the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause has been central to a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from enacting laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of US citizens or deny them equal protection under the law. This means that all persons within a state's jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection of their legal and civil rights, regardless of race, gender, or any other characteristic. The clause has been interpreted to require states to treat similarly situated people alike, and it has been used to challenge laws that discriminate against individuals or groups.
While the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action that denies equal protection, it does not shield against private conduct, even if it is discriminatory or wrongful. This distinction between state action and private conduct is important in determining the scope of constitutional protections. In other words, the amendment is concerned with state action of a particular character that impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens or denies them due process of law or equal protection.
In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is a powerful tool for ensuring that all persons within a state's jurisdiction are treated equally under the law, regardless of their personal characteristics. While it does not protect against private discriminatory conduct, it plays a crucial role in safeguarding citizens' rights and holding states accountable to the principles of equal protection and due process.
Unwritten Constitutions: Flexibility or Uncertainty?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Civil rights lawsuits and state action
Civil rights lawsuits are a means of enforcing political and social freedom and equality. In the United States, an individual citizen can sue a government employee for violating their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This is a federal law, but there are also state civil rights laws that may grant more protection than federal law. For example, a defendant may violate a plaintiff's rights under federal law, but state law may offer the plaintiff more protection, in which case the plaintiff may choose to file their case in state court.
To initiate a civil rights lawsuit, an attorney will first gather the facts of the case and any supporting evidence. They will then draft a complaint, which will name all involved parties who may have violated the plaintiff's rights as defendants. The complaint will include a statement of facts and the plaintiff's claims, and will ask for damages. These damages can be compensatory, punitive, or nominal.
When suing police officers, the most common defense is qualified immunity. The judge will grant qualified immunity and dismiss the case if they find that the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and did not violate the plaintiff's clearly established rights.
In terms of state action, the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution states 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". This means that any state official who deprives another person of property, life, or liberty without due process of law, or denies or takes away equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition.
However, the Court has noted that it can be difficult to determine whether certain conduct constitutes state action. For example, in the case of Norwood v. Harrison (1973), the Court struck down the provision of free textbooks by a state to racially segregated private schools, even though the textbook program predated the establishment of these schools. The Court found that "any tangible state assistance [...] is constitutionally prohibited if it has 'a significant tendency to facilitate, reinforce, and support private discrimination'".
In another case, Reitman, the Court struck down an amendment to the California Constitution that prohibited the state and its subdivisions and agencies from forbidding racial discrimination in private housing. The Court found that the provision constituted state action to encourage private racial discrimination and made discriminatory racial practices immune from the ordinary legislative process.
Assembly Limitations: What's the Constitutional Threshold?
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's expansive view of state action in relation to private actors
The individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities. An exception to this is the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of slavery. Civil rights lawsuits seeking to vindicate federal constitutional rights are limited to situations involving "state action", which refers to government officials exercising their governmental power.
In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action, allowing for wide-ranging civil rights litigation against private actors. This was demonstrated in the case of Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, where the Court found that a private restaurant that excluded black customers was a state actor for constitutional purposes due to its lease relationship with a public parking authority, their mutual commercial benefits, and the use of public funds in the building's construction. The Court's decision in this case sent a strong message against racial discrimination, indicating that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to condemn such discriminatory actions involving state participation.
Another example of the Supreme Court's expansive view of state action is Norwood v. Harrison, where the Court struck down a state's provision of free textbooks to racially segregated private schools. The Court found that any tangible state assistance that significantly facilitates, reinforces, and supports private discrimination is constitutionally prohibited. This decision demonstrated the Court's willingness to hold state actors accountable for their role in perpetuating racial segregation and protecting equal protection under the law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances in which private actors are deemed state actors, making it more challenging to hold nongovernmental entities accountable for constitutional violations. However, civil rights advocates continue to pursue litigation against private actors, particularly in cases involving police enforcement of private policies, as seen in two recent cases from the Eighth Circuit and the Southern District of New York. These cases illustrate the ongoing efforts to extend constitutional obligations to private actors and hold them accountable for their actions.
Who Can Legally Represent the Deceased?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fourteenth Amendment does not empower Congress to regulate private conduct, only the actions of state and local governments.
In such a case, the suit against the private party must determine whether they are so involved with the government as to be subject to constitutional restraints.
The State Action Doctrine states that the Fourteenth Amendment does not erect a shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment.
In Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action that encourages private racial discrimination or makes discriminatory racial practices immune from the legislative process.
