Malcolm Rivera
The individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities. The Thirteenth Amendment, which bans slavery, is a notable exception. In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action, allowing for civil rights litigation against private actors. However, the Court has since narrowed the situations in which actions by non-governmental actors can be deemed state action. The Fourteenth Amendment, which includes the Equal Protection Clause, does not restrict private conduct, and Section Five does not empower Congress to regulate private conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations, was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate private actors. Nonetheless, there have been instances where private entities have been held to be state actors in conjunction with police actions, demonstrating an approach to extending constitutional obligations to private actors.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Exceptions | The Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery |
| Individual liberties | Protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities |
| Civil rights lawsuits | Limited to situations where there is "state action" |
| Expansion of civil rights | The Supreme Court's willingness to extend constitutional obligations to private actors through an expansion of the concept of state action |
| State Action Clause | Prevents discrimination or any other violations of a person's rights/protections by state agents or government entities, but not private actors |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Contains rights and protections such as due process, equal protection, citizenship, state action, privacy rights, and more |
| Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment | Does not empower Congress to regulate private conduct, but only the actions of state and local governments |
| Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment | Does not provide Congress with the power to create new rights or expand existing rights, but only to prevent or remedy violations of rights already recognized by the courts |
Explore related products
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 in the United States and all territories under its jurisdiction. The Amendment states that "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 marked a significant turning point in the nation's history, as it provided a final constitutional solution to the issue of slavery, which had been sparingly mentioned in the Constitution up until that point.
Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the only reference to slavery in the Constitution was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which stated that enslaved persons were considered three-fifths of a fully free citizen for representation purposes in the House of Representatives. Additionally, the Fugitive Slave Clause reinforced slavery by stating that a slave remained a slave even if they fled to a non-slavery state. Despite President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which declared all persons held as slaves in states rebelling against the Union to be forever free, it became evident that a constitutional amendment was necessary to truly abolish slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment not only abolished chattel slavery but also restricted other forms of bound labor and servitude, such as indentured servitude and peonage. The Amendment granted Congress the power to enforce its provisions through appropriate legislation, and it has since been used to combat racial discrimination in various sectors, including the private sector, public transportation, and housing. The Amendment's enforcement clause in Section Two has been pivotal in these efforts.
The Thirteenth Amendment stands as a pivotal moment in the expansion of civil rights in the United States, serving as the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments. It not only ended the practice of slavery but also set a precedent for holding private actors accountable to constitutional obligations. This amendment demonstrates the power of constitutional amendments to address societal issues and protect the liberties of citizens, even against actions by private persons or entities.
Presidential Succession: Which Constitutional Amendment?
You may want to see also
Fourteenth Amendment's State Action Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment's State Action Clause has been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court in various cases to address issues of discrimination and equal protection. The Clause prohibits state actions that infringe on the privileges and immunities of US citizens, deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny them equal protection of the laws.
The State Action Doctrine, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to rights protected under the Amendment, such as privileges and immunities, and due process. This doctrine extends beyond state legislatures to include acts by other branches of government and individuals acting under the colour of state law. For example, in United States v. Raines, the Court held that an act passed by a state legislature that resulted in discrimination violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., the Court condemned the statutory requirement of racially segregated schools.
The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of private discrimination and its relationship with state action. In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., the Court considered whether there was sufficient state involvement to trigger the Fourteenth Amendment when private parties engaged in discrimination. The Court concluded that private discrimination is not constitutionally forbidden unless the state is significantly involved. This decision marked a shift from an earlier case, Shelley v. Kraemer, where the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment nullifies state action that impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens or denies them equal protection.
The Fourteenth Amendment's State Action Clause has been interpreted to restrict the actions of state and local governments, but not private conduct. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not create new rights or expand existing ones under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it exceeded the scope of Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, in United States v. Morrison, the Court held that Congress could not enact the Violence Against Women Act under Section Five, reaffirming that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits only state action.
While the Fourteenth Amendment's State Action Clause focuses on restricting state actions, it has had implications for private actors in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has, at times, extended constitutional obligations to private actors by interpreting state action broadly. For example, in Wickersham v. City of Columbia, the Eighth Circuit held that a private veterans' organization's restrictions on expressive activity during an air show authorised by the city council were subject to constitutional scrutiny. These interpretations of the State Action Clause have expanded civil rights protections and allowed for litigation against private actors in some cases.
The Amendment That Extended Rights to Black Males
You may want to see also
Fourteenth Amendment's Enforcement Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment's Enforcement Clause, also known as Section 5, grants Congress the power to enforce the Amendment through appropriate legislation. This clause is essential, as without it, the Fourteenth Amendment would be meaningless, and states could create laws that discriminate against certain groups.
The Enforcement Clause states: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." This clause empowers Congress to ensure that all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment, which include equal protection under the law and the prohibition of state laws designed to discriminate.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War to address the issues faced by newly freed African Americans, ensuring they had the same fundamental rights as other citizens. The Enforcement Clause played a crucial role in this, as it allowed Congress to pass legislation like the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871 to enforce the Amendment and protect the rights of African Americans.
However, the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's power under Section 5 narrowly, holding that it does not empower Congress to regulate private conduct but only state and local government actions. This interpretation has been challenged, with some arguing that Congress should have more extensive power to expand the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been pivotal in ensuring equal rights for all citizens and empowering Congress to pass legislation to uphold these rights. However, the interpretation of its scope has been a subject of debate, with ongoing discussions about the balance of power between the state and federal governments.
The Landmark Case: Constitutional Amendment Focus
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$29.95
Supreme Court's expansion of civil rights in the 1960s
During the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court played a significant role in expanding civil rights in the United States. The Court addressed various issues involving individual rights, including those related to the civil rights movement, voting rights, police procedures, and the scope of state power in areas such as birth control and school prayer.
One notable example of the Supreme Court's expansion of civil rights during this period was the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In this case, the Court challenged the constitutionality of segregated schools, marking a shift from the "separate but equal" principle established in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. This decision set a precedent for wider civil rights victories in the 1960s.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court also addressed the rights of protesters and the scope of segregation. For instance, the Court held that sit-in demonstrations by young Black activists, who sat at whites-only lunch counters, could not be prosecuted under federal or state trespass laws. Additionally, the Court's decision in Boynton v. Virginia (1960) affirmed that segregation on interstate bus routes was unconstitutional.
Another landmark case during this period was Loving v. Virginia in 1967, where the Supreme Court unanimously found Virginia's anti-miscegenation law to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that such laws served no rational purpose other than to reinforce racial discrimination and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's recognition of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment during this era protected the rights of Americans in areas not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, including racial integration in schools, women's rights in the workplace, and access to contraception.
In addition to expanding civil rights for marginalized racial groups, the Supreme Court also advanced women's rights, gay rights, and the rights of criminal defendants, protesters, and the press during the 1960s. The Court's rulings during this period contributed to significant social change and the advancement of equality in the nation.
Amendments: Why Our Constitution Evolves
You may want to see also
Private racial discrimination
The US Constitution's individual liberties safeguard against actions by government officials but not by private individuals or entities. The Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery is a notable exception.
In the 1960s, the US Supreme Court broadened its interpretation of "state action," allowing for extensive civil rights litigation against private actors. The Court's decision in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, which challenged the exclusion of Black people from a private restaurant, was a watershed moment in this regard.
However, the Court has since narrowed the circumstances in which actions by non-governmental actors can be deemed state action. For instance, in Wickersham v. City of Columbia, the Eighth Circuit held that a private veterans' organisation's restrictions on expressive activity during an air show authorised by the city council did not constitute state action.
The Fourteenth Amendment, by its own terms, applies to all people. However, there is a long history of racial discrimination, particularly against African Americans, that the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to address. The Equal Protection Clause, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to prevent states from discriminating against Black people. Despite this, the Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that "separate but equal" facilities for Black and white people did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The degree to which the government can consider race when formulating remedies for past discrimination is a contentious issue in equal protection litigation. Some people oppose race-conscious measures, arguing that they violate the Fourteenth Amendment and perpetuate discrimination.
Civil War's Constitutional Legacy: Amendments
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains several notable rights and protections, such as applying due process and equal protection to State law. It includes sections on citizenship, state action, privacy rights, apportionment, disqualification for rebellion, debt, and the enforcement clause.
No, the 14th Amendment does not restrict private actors. The State Action Clause of the 14th Amendment prevents discrimination or any other violations of a person's rights/protections by state agents or government entities, but not private actors.
Yes, the 13th Amendment is the exception to the rule that the Constitution protects against actions by government officials but not private persons or entities. The 13th Amendment bans slavery, restricting private actors.
The State Action Doctrine relates to the 14th Amendment. It states that the Amendment does not erect a shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. It is State action that is prohibited.
