Simone Lawson
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, has been the subject of numerous Supreme Court cases that have significantly shaped the interpretation and application of various constitutional rights. This amendment, which extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people, has been central to landmark rulings on due process, equal protection, and individual rights against the states. One notable case is Gideon's challenge, which established the right to legal representation for indigent defendants in criminal cases. The Fourteenth Amendment's impact is also seen in cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, where the phrase equal protection of the laws was pivotal. The amendment's due process clause has been invoked in debates about unenumerated rights, with the Supreme Court using it to strike down state laws, sometimes controversially, as in the Lochner v. New York case.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Fourteenth Amendment |
| Date proposed | 16 June 1866 |
| Date ratified | 9 July 1868 |
| Purpose | To provide federal protection of individual rights against the states, extending the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people and guaranteeing equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens |
| Notable cases | * The Dred Scott Case (1857) |
- The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
- Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
- Lochner v. New York (1905)
- Gideon (n.d.)
- Brown v. Board of Education (n.d.)
- Roe v. Wade (n.d.)
- Bush v. Gore (n.d.)
- Reed v. Reed (n.d.)
- University of California v. Bakke (n.d.) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 14th Amendment and citizenship
The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified in 1868, was designed to extend liberties and rights to formerly enslaved people and guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens.
A key provision of the amendment was to grant citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This established birthright citizenship, which automatically grants citizenship to individuals upon birth based on their place of birth or ancestry. The amendment specifically repudiated the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had excluded people of African descent from US citizenship based on their race.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment provides the basic rule for acquiring US citizenship and confers state citizenship on national citizens residing in a state. However, it does not specify the legal benefits associated with citizenship. The amendment also does not address how state and national citizenship can be acquired, leaving some questions unanswered. For example, it does not clarify if a state can confer state citizenship on non-US citizens or if national citizenship can be acquired through means other than birth in the US or naturalization.
The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to exclude certain categories of individuals born in the US from automatic citizenship, such as those whose parents are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents. Additionally, it does not extend citizenship to those "subject to any foreign power" or "Indians not taxed." The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) clarified that children born in the US to immigrant parents are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. However, there have been recent attempts by the Trump administration to limit birthright citizenship for babies of undocumented immigrants.
The Second Amendment: Right to Keep and Bear Arms
You may want to see also
Due Process Clause
The Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The clauses prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has formed the basis for many high-profile Supreme Court cases. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has held that this protection extends to all natural persons, regardless of race, colour, or citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Courts have developed two branches of due process doctrine: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process involves the steps that must be taken before someone is deprived of an interest involving life, liberty, or property. These vary depending on the situation but typically include notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as an unbiased decision-maker. Sometimes procedural due process may also entail a right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine opposing witnesses, and an opportunity to be represented by counsel, among other protections.
Substantive due process involves certain fundamental rights deeply rooted in American history and tradition. The Supreme Court has construed the Clause to protect substantive due process, holding that there are certain fundamental rights that the government may not infringe, even if it provides procedural protections. The "substantive due process" jurisprudence has been among the most controversial areas of Supreme Court adjudication. The concern is that five unelected Justices of the Supreme Court can impose their policy preferences on the nation, given that, by definition, unenumerated rights do not flow directly from the text of the Constitution.
The Last Constitutional Amendment: When Was It?
You may want to see also
Civil rights
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1868, was designed to extend liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. It was part of the Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. A key provision of the amendment was to grant citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," thereby granting citizenship to those who had previously been enslaved.
Despite the intentions behind the 14th Amendment, for many years, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not extend the Bill of Rights to the states, and it failed to protect the rights of Black citizens. This prompted citizens to petition and initiate court cases, leading to a determined struggle to make the promises of the 14th Amendment a reality.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was introduced by Radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner as an amendment to a general amnesty bill for former Confederates. The Act guaranteed all citizens, regardless of colour, access to accommodations, theatres, public schools, churches, and cemeteries. It also prohibited the exclusion of any person from jury service based on race and stipulated that lawsuits under the Act would be tried in federal courts.
The 14th Amendment has been invoked in numerous landmark Supreme Court cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled that segregation in public schools based on race was unconstitutional, and Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), which held that the historical context of countering discriminatory Black Codes must be considered in interpreting the Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Slaughter-House Cases
The case arose when the Louisiana state legislature granted a monopoly to the Crescent City Livestock Landing & Slaughterhouse Company in 1869. This mandate required all other livestock slaughtering businesses in the New Orleans area either to shut down or pay to work on the Crescent City premises. The butchers in New Orleans objected, arguing that the law made doing business for them too costly and deprived them of their livelihoods. They sued Louisiana, claiming that the state-sanctioned monopoly infringed on their newly ratified Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court rejected the butchers' challenge and upheld the Louisiana law. The Court held that the Thirteenth Amendment, which addressed slavery, did not apply in this case. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, ruling that it only protected the legal rights associated with federal citizenship, not state citizenship. This decision minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law and effectively gutted its meaning.
Texas Constitution Amendments: Who's in Charge?
You may want to see also
The Dred Scott Case
Scott sued for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, arguing that he had resided in free states and territories, and therefore should be granted his freedom. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion. The ruling stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not enjoy the rights and protections afforded to citizens, including the right to sue in federal court. This decision was based on the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which, according to Taney, implicitly denied any possibility of constitutional rights for black African slaves and their descendants.
Furthermore, the Court also assessed the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in territories north of the 36°30′ parallel. The Court ruled that the Compromise was unconstitutional, as it deprived slave owners of their property without due process, violating the Fifth Amendment. This decision inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide between states, pushing the country closer to the American Civil War.
The Dred Scott decision is widely considered one of the worst, if not the worst, in the Supreme Court's history. It was denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, and poor legal reasoning. The ruling was eventually overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States.
The Supreme Court: Constitutional Amendments Explored
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Dred Scott Case in 1857 was about the Fourteenth Amendment. Scott, a slave, argued for his freedom on the basis that his owner had taken him to a territory where slavery was banned. The Chief Justice Taney replied that declaring Scott free would deprive his owner of property without due process of law.
The Slaughter-House Case in 1873 was about the Fourteenth Amendment. The case foreclosed the interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Court turned to the Due Process Clause as a source of unenumerated rights.
The Gideon case was about the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon, a Florida resident, was charged with breaking and entering and requested an attorney be appointed to him due to his poverty. The Florida court declined, and Gideon represented himself and lost. He then argued that he had a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, and the United States Supreme Court agreed, guaranteeing the Sixth Amendment’s similar federal guarantees.
The Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 was about the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy lost in every court in Louisiana before appealing to the Supreme Court, which held that as long as the facilities were equal, their separation satisfied the 14th Amendment.
