The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, is the Reconstruction-era addition to the U.S. Constitution that defines who is an American citizen and forbids states from denying any person due process of law or equal protection of the laws.1National Archives. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights Passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified by 28 of the then-37 states, it was the second of three Reconstruction Amendments written to secure rights for formerly enslaved people. Its five sections established birthright citizenship, restrained state governments in how they treat individuals, restructured congressional representation, barred former Confederate officials from office, protected Union war debts while voiding Confederate ones, and gave Congress the authority to enforce all of it. No other amendment has generated more Supreme Court litigation, and none has done more to shape modern civil rights law.
Who Counts as a Citizen
The opening line of Section 1 created a national definition of citizenship for the first time: anyone born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of both the nation and the state where they live.2Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment Before 1868, citizenship was largely a matter of state law, and the federal Constitution never spelled out who qualified.
The clause was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that a free person of African descent “is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States” and therefore could not sue in federal court.3National Archives. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) By writing birthright citizenship into the Constitution itself, the 14th Amendment made the rule permanent and put it out of reach of any future court ruling or state statute. Every person born on American soil holds the same legal standing, regardless of ancestry or the prior status of their parents.
Due Process and What It Requires of the States
The Due Process Clause bars states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”2Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment Courts read the single phrase to do two different jobs.
Procedural Due Process
The more intuitive protection is procedural. Before the government takes away your freedom, your property, or your life, it must follow fair procedures. At a minimum, that means notice of what the government intends to do and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker. A state cannot seize your home, revoke your professional license, or lock you up without giving you a chance to contest the action through established legal proceedings. These protections extend to all persons within a state’s borders, not just citizens.
Substantive Due Process
The Supreme Court also reads the clause to “protect certain fundamental constitutional rights from government interference, regardless of the procedures that the government follows when enforcing the law.”4Constitution Annotated. Overview of Substantive Due Process Under this doctrine, the Court has recognized rights that appear nowhere in the Constitution’s text, including the right to marry. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court held that the right to marry is “a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” and that same-sex couples could not be deprived of it under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.5Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
The doctrine’s boundaries remain contested. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and held that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” returning authority over abortion regulation to elected legislatures.6Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization (2022) That decision signaled a narrower approach to substantive due process, at least for rights the Court concludes are not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.
How the Bill of Rights Reaches State Governments
Before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights constrained only the federal government. The Supreme Court said so in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), holding that the Fifth Amendment applied “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.”7Justia. Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) A state could theoretically restrict speech, deny jury trials, or conduct unreasonable searches without violating the federal Constitution.
Starting in 1925, the Supreme Court began using the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause to apply individual Bill of Rights protections against state governments, a process known as selective incorporation. The Court asks, case by case, whether a given right is fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty. If it is, the 14th Amendment makes it binding on the states. Some of the most consequential incorporation decisions:
- Free speech (First Amendment): Gitlow v. New York (1925), the first case to hold that a Bill of Rights guarantee applies to state governments through the 14th Amendment.
- Unreasonable searches (Fourth Amendment): Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which required states to exclude illegally obtained evidence from criminal trials.
- Right to counsel (Sixth Amendment): Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which guaranteed a lawyer to criminal defendants who could not afford one.
- Right against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment): Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which required police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial questioning.
- Right to bear arms (Second Amendment): McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).8Justia. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Today, nearly every provision in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states. Free speech, freedom of religion, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to a jury trial — these apply to every level of government, and that outcome flows almost entirely from the 14th Amendment.
Equal Protection of the Laws
p>Section 1 closes with a requirement that no state “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”2Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment The clause was aimed at preventing states from passing laws that singled out newly freed Black citizens for inferior treatment. Its first major test came in The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), where the Supreme Court read the entire 14th Amendment narrowly and suggested equal protection applied only to race-based discrimination. That cramped reading did not survive. Over the following century and a half, the Court expanded the clause into a broad prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory government classifications.
The most famous application came in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court held that racial segregation in public schools was inherently unequal: “In the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.”9Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S1.8.2.1 Brown v. Board of Education That decision dismantled the legal framework for Jim Crow segregation.
Levels of Judicial Scrutiny
Not every law that treats people differently violates equal protection. Governments routinely classify people by income for tax purposes, by age for driving privileges, by professional qualification for licensing. Courts decide whether a classification is permissible by applying one of three levels of scrutiny, depending on the group being singled out.
Rational basis review is the default standard. The government only needs to show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Courts presume the law is valid, and states get wide latitude when regulating economic and social matters. Most laws survive this test.10Constitution Annotated. Equal Protection and Rational Basis Review Generally
Intermediate scrutiny applies when laws classify people by sex or similar characteristics. The government must show the classification furthers an important governmental objective and is substantially related to achieving it. Vague generalizations about group differences are not enough.
Strict scrutiny is the highest bar. It applies when a law classifies people by race, national origin, religion, or alienage, or when it burdens a fundamental right. The government must prove the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it using the least restrictive means available. Laws rarely survive it.
The Other Four Sections
Most of the attention the amendment gets is focused on Section 1, but the document has four more sections that did real work in 1868 and still occasionally surface.
Section 2: Representation in Congress
Section 2 overhauled how congressional seats are distributed. Under the original Constitution, enslaved people counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes. Section 2 replaced that formula by requiring representatives to be apportioned based on the “whole number of persons in each State.”11Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment Section 2 – Apportionment of Representation Because the Thirteenth Amendment had already abolished slavery, formerly enslaved people would now be fully counted, which would have increased the representation of the former slaveholding states. To keep those states from gaining seats while blocking Black men from voting, Section 2 provided that if a state denied the vote to any male citizens aged twenty-one or older, its representation in Congress would be reduced proportionally.12Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S2.1 Overview of Apportionment of Representation Congress never actually enforced this penalty against any state.
Section 3: Disqualification from Office
Section 3 addressed what to do with the thousands of former officials who had joined the Confederacy. Anyone who had previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” was barred from holding federal or state office.13Constitution Annotated. Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 – Disqualification from Holding Office Only a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress could lift the disqualification for a specific individual. Congress removed most of these disabilities through the Amnesty Act of 1872.14Congress.gov. Cawthorn v. Amalfi
Section 3 returned to public attention in 2024, when several states attempted to disqualify a federal candidate from the ballot under the insurrection clause. In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court held that only Congress has the power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, reasoning that the amendment’s enforcement mechanisms “speak only to enforcement by Congress” under Section 5. States retain authority to disqualify candidates for state office on their own.15Constitution Annotated. Trump v. Anderson and Enforcement of the Insurrection Clause
Section 4: Public Debt
Section 4 dealt with Civil War finances. It declared that the public debt of the United States “shall not be questioned,” specifically including obligations for pensions and payments to soldiers who fought to suppress the rebellion.16Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment Section 4 The flip side was equally important: neither the federal government nor any state could assume or pay any debt incurred to support the Confederacy, and no former slaveholder could claim compensation for the loss of enslaved people. All such debts and claims were declared “illegal and void.”17Constitution Annotated. Fourteenth Amendment Section 4 – Public Debt
Section 5: Congressional Enforcement Power
Section 5 is a single sentence: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”18Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 Before 1868, protecting civil rights was almost entirely a state responsibility. Section 5 shifted that balance by giving the federal legislature an affirmative tool to ensure the amendment’s guarantees were honored.
That power has limits. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court held that any law Congress passes under Section 5 must show “congruence and proportionality” between the constitutional violation being targeted and the remedy Congress chose.19Justia. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) Congress can pass preventive legislation to stop constitutional violations before they happen, but it cannot use Section 5 to redefine the substance of constitutional rights. That job stays with the courts.