The most quoted lines of the Fourteenth Amendment sit in Section 1, which established birthright citizenship and barred states from denying due process or equal protection of the laws. The amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments written to secure the legal rights of formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.1United States Senate. Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment Below is the full text of Section 1, followed by the key phrases from each clause and from the amendment’s later sections, with what the Supreme Court has said they mean.
Full Text of Section 1
Section 1 reads in full:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.”2National Archives. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
Four distinct guarantees are packed into that paragraph. Each has generated its own body of case law.
The Citizenship Clause
The opening sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”2National Archives. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
This clause created a universal rule: if you are born on American soil and subject to its jurisdiction, you are a citizen, and no state can revoke that status or add conditions to it. The Supreme Court tested it in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which involved a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were permanent residents. The Court held that he was a citizen by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents had permanent residence in the country and were not serving in any diplomatic capacity for a foreign government.3Justia. United States v. Wong Kim Ark The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language carves out a narrow exception for children of foreign diplomats and similar officials who carry sovereign immunity.
The clause also puts national citizenship first and state citizenship second. You are a citizen of the United States, and then of the state where you live.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause
The next phrase: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”2National Archives. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
On paper, sweeping. In practice, the Supreme Court narrowed it almost immediately. In the Slaughter-House Cases, decided five years after ratification, the Court held that the only privileges protected from state interference were those that “owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws” — things like the right to travel between states and the right to access federal courts.4Congress.gov. Amdt14.S1.2.1 Privileges or Immunities of Citizens and the Slaughter-House Cases Legal commentators have called that reading a “practical nullity.”5Legal Information Institute. Privileges or Immunities of Citizens and the Slaughter-House Cases Most of what people assume this clause protects — free speech against state censorship, for example — actually runs through the Due Process Clause instead, by way of a doctrine called incorporation.
The Due Process Clause
The third phrase: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”2National Archives. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
Courts have drawn two separate requirements from it.
Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process means the government must follow a fair process before taking your life, liberty, or property. At a minimum, that includes notice of the government’s intended action and the reasons for it, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a decision by someone neutral and unbiased.6Congress.gov. Amdt14.S1.5.4.3 Notice of Charge and Due Process Revoke a professional license or seize property without those steps, and a court can throw out the action.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process is more contested. It holds that certain rights are so fundamental that no procedure, however fair, justifies taking them away. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court held that the right to marry is “a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and that same-sex couples cannot be excluded from it.7Justia. Obergefell v. Hodges In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court held that the Constitution “does not confer a right to abortion,” overturning nearly fifty years of precedent and emphasizing that substantive due process protections should be limited to rights “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
The Due Process Clause is also the vehicle courts have used to apply most of the Bill of Rights against state and local governments. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it restricted only the federal government. Through selective incorporation, the Supreme Court has held that nearly every protection it contains also binds the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.8Congress.gov. Amdt14.S1.4.1 Overview of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment is “fully applicable to the States” through the Due Process Clause.9Justia. McDonald v. City of Chicago
The Equal Protection Clause
Section 1 closes with: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”2National Archives. 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)
The wording is “any person,” not “any citizen.” Noncitizens physically present in the country are covered too. The clause does not demand identical treatment in every situation, but it demands a legitimate reason for treating people differently and a fit between that reason and the burden imposed.
The most famous application came in Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court unanimously held that racially segregated public schools are “inherently unequal” and violate the Equal Protection Clause.10Congress.gov. Amdt14.S1.8.2.1 Brown v. Board of Education
Levels of Judicial Review
Not all equal protection claims get the same treatment. The level of scrutiny depends on the classification:
- Strict scrutiny applies when a law classifies by race, national origin, or alienage, or burdens a fundamental right. The government must prove the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it. Few laws survive it.
- Intermediate scrutiny applies to classifications based on gender or legitimacy of birth. The government must show the law serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to achieving it.
- Rational basis review is the default. The government only needs a legitimate interest and a rational connection between the law and that interest. Most laws pass easily.
Where a court places a classification on this ladder often decides the case before the arguments begin.
Quotes From Sections 2 Through 5
Section 1 draws the most quotation, but the later sections contain language that still surfaces in modern legal fights.
Section 2 bases congressional representation on “the whole number of persons in each State” and reduces a state’s representation proportionally if it denies or restricts voting rights.11Constitution Annotated. U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Section 2 The reduction penalty has never been enforced, but the apportionment rule remains the basis for the census and redistricting.
Section 3 bars anyone who previously swore 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” from holding federal or state office. Congress can lift that disqualification by a two-thirds vote in each chamber.12Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 In Trump v. Anderson (2024), the Supreme Court held that “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” reserving that authority to Congress.13Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Anderson
Section 4 declares: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”14Constitution Annotated. Fourteenth Amendment Section 4 In Perry v. United States, the Supreme Court held that this language “embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations” and that Congress cannot simply withdraw its promise to repay debts it has authorized.15Justia. Perry v. United States Section 4 also prohibits paying “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion” or any claim tied to emancipation.
Section 5 closes the amendment: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”16Constitution Annotated. Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 That power has limits. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court held that any enforcement legislation must show “a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.”17Justia. City of Boerne v. Flores Congress can enforce the amendment’s guarantees; it cannot use Section 5 to expand what those guarantees mean beyond what the courts have recognized.