Simone Lawson
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which was adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people, has been interpreted to provide constitutional protections to corporations as well. This interpretation, known as corporate personhood, has been controversial and has led to corporations being granted rights such as the right to own property and enter into contracts, and to be protected from discrimination by the states. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause have been central to this debate, with the Supreme Court using these clauses to guarantee fundamental rights and liberties to corporations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year of Amendment | 1868 |
| Amendment Number | Fourteenth Amendment |
| Amendment Type | Equal Protection Clause |
| Amendment Purpose | To protect the rights of formerly enslaved people |
| Corporations Granted Rights | Southern Pacific Railroad Company |
| Court Case | Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. |
| Court Decision | Corporations granted constitutional protections |
| Court Ruling Date | 1886 |
| Subsequent Cases | Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823), Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888), Bellotti decision (1978) |
| Related Concepts | Corporate personhood, juridical personality, substantive due process |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourteenth Amendment and the expansion of civil rights
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments, significantly expanded civil rights and liberties for formerly enslaved people and Black citizens. It addressed citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, ensuring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens with guaranteed rights and protections.
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights only constrained the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment aimed to reverse this decision and extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, the primary author of the first section of the amendment, intended to nationalize the Bill of Rights, making it binding on the states. This section is the most frequently litigated part of the amendment and the entire Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment was a response to issues affecting freed slaves following the Civil War. It was designed to secure the rights of the newly emancipated slaves and protect them from discrimination by the states. The amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process were meant to safeguard the liberties of this vulnerable population. However, it took decades for African Americans to see the full protections of the amendment realised, as they continued to face discrimination and the denial of their rights.
The amendment also granted Congress the power to enforce its provisions, leading to the passage of other landmark civil rights legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Fourteenth Amendment has been central to significant Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which prohibited racial segregation in public schools, and Loving v. Virginia (1967), which ended interracial marriage bans.
While the Fourteenth Amendment expanded civil rights, some criticised it for not addressing political rights. Additionally, the amendment has been controversially applied to corporations, with debates around "corporate personhood" and the extension of constitutional protections to juridical persons. The interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause has been a key aspect of this debate, with some arguing that it should be limited to natural persons.
Religious Teaching Laws: Constitutional Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
Corporate personhood
The concept of corporate personhood is not a new one and can be traced back to ancient Indian society, where legal personhood was granted to guild-like śreṇī that operated in the public interest. The late Roman Republic also granted legal personhood to municipalities and public works companies that managed public services. By the Renaissance period, European jurists routinely held that churches and universities chartered by the government could acquire property, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued independently of their members.
In the United States, the concept of corporate personhood has been a topic of ongoing legal debate, particularly around the extension of constitutional rights to corporations. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was originally intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and ensure equal protection and due process. However, in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., the Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause also granted constitutional protections to corporations. This sparked a debate around corporate personhood and the extent to which corporations should be afforded the same rights as natural persons.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in 2010 further highlighted the controversy around corporate personhood. The Supreme Court's ruling upheld the rights of corporations to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment, arguing that political speech rights apply to both individuals and associations of individuals. This decision ignited calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood or limit its influence, particularly in politics.
While some argue that corporate personhood encourages economic growth and global collaboration, critics contend that corporations lack morality and should not have the same influence as natural persons. The debate around corporate personhood continues to evolve through court rulings and political developments.
The Constitution's Latest Amendment
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co
The case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (118 U.S. 394) was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886. It is a significant case in corporate law, addressing the taxation of railroad properties in California.
The case arose when several railroads refused to follow a California state law that gave less favourable tax treatment to some assets owned by corporations compared to those owned by individuals. The specific issue was the taxation of fences erected on the roadways owned by the railroads. The state court recognised the right of the railroads to transfer proceedings to a federal court. During the trial, no record of any assessment made by the state board was entered into evidence.
The Supreme Court's ruling was relatively straightforward, determining that railroad fences could not be taxed under state law. However, the case gained greater constitutional importance due to Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite's commentary. In his opinion, Justice Waite asserted that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied not only to individuals but also to corporations. This interpretation extended the application of constitutional protections to corporate entities, setting a precedent that influenced future legal interpretations.
The case established, via a headnote, that corporations are considered persons under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This headnote was written by the Reporter of Decisions, J.C. Bancroft Davis, and approved by Chief Justice Waite. It marked the first occasion on which the Supreme Court indicated that the Equal Protection Clause granted constitutional protections to corporations. The headnote has been subsequently cited as affirming the protection of corporations under the Fourteenth Amendment, despite not being part of the Court's ruling or the opinion of the majority or minority.
Religious Liberty: The US Constitution's First Amendment
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The rights of formerly enslaved people
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, was designed to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people. It was one of three amendments designed to grant full citizenship rights to this group, alongside the 13th and 15th Amendments. The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, though it included an exception clause that allowed these practices as punishment for a crime. This exception led to the continued criminalisation, incarceration, and re-enslavement of Black people, particularly in former slave states.
The 14th Amendment aimed to secure the rights of newly freed slaves and protect them from discrimination by the states. It guaranteed that states, like the federal government, could not "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 right to due process and equal protection under the law was now extended to both levels of government.
Despite the intentions behind the 14th Amendment, it ultimately failed to protect the rights of Black citizens. Citizens petitioned, initiated court cases, and Congress enacted legislation, but the promise of the Amendment was not realised during Reconstruction. It would take until the 20th century for the arguments and dissenting opinions of these citizens to form the basis for change.
In the years following the Civil War, there was a mandate to redistribute wealth, provide reparations to formerly enslaved people, and expand access to the democratic process. However, this was stifled by voter suppression laws and violence against formerly enslaved people and labour unions. At this time, much of the nation's wealth was held by white oligarchs in private corporations, and "corporate personhood" was invented by the courts to protect this wealth.
The 14th Amendment has been exploited by corporations to win equal protection and due process rights, with the Southern Pacific Railroad Company successfully arguing that the Amendment applied to corporations as well. This interpretation has been reaffirmed in subsequent court decisions, expanding the protection of civil rights beyond the scope originally intended.
Texas' Constitution: Last Amendments and Future Changes
You may want to see also
The Due Process Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to secure the rights of newly freed slaves and protect them from discrimination by the states. However, in 1882, Roscoe Conkling argued that the amendment also protected the rights of corporations, specifically his client, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. This interpretation was reflected in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., where the court reporter's headnote stated that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause applied to corporations, even though the Court did not issue a formal decision on this point.
Interpreting Constitutional Amendments: Understanding the Blank Space
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people. It guarantees equal protection and due process, which were designed to secure the rights of the newly freed slaves and protect them from discrimination by the states.
In the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., the Court appeared to grant a corporation the same rights as an individual under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was due to a headnote issued by the court reporter, claiming to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations.
While the headnote is not part of the Court's official opinion and thus not a precedent, it was treated as an official part of the verdict in later cases. This led to the expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment's protections to corporations in addition to natural persons.
The implications are controversial. Critics argue that corporate personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment grants corporations constitutional "rights" that should be reserved for natural persons. This includes the right to own property, enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued.
