Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to non-citizens in its two most important guarantees: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause both use the word “person,” and the Supreme Court has read that word to cover everyone physically present in the United States, whatever their immigration status. The amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, by contrast, protects only citizens, and a separate set of rights outside the Fourteenth Amendment — voting in federal elections, serving on juries, and a few others — is reserved for citizens as well.
Why the Word “Person” Matters
The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment does two different jobs and uses two different words to do them. When it defines who belongs to the national community, it speaks of “citizens.” When it guarantees due process and equal protection, it switches to “person.” That switch is not accidental. It means the protections travel with presence in the country, not with a passport or a green card.
The Supreme Court settled the point in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), a case brought by Chinese laundry operators in San Francisco who were denied permits that white operators received. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees “extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”1Justia. Yick Wo v. Hopkins That reading has stood ever since.
Due Process Protections for Non-Citizens
The Due Process Clause bars any state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”2Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment The Supreme Court has confirmed the protection extends to all natural persons regardless of citizenship.3Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S1.3 Due Process Generally In practice, that means the government must follow fair procedures before it takes away a person’s freedom or property, whether that person is a citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or undocumented.
Fair procedure means, at a minimum, notice of what the government is doing and why, and a real chance to be heard before an impartial decision-maker. In Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court held that Congress can deport non-citizens, but it cannot impose criminal punishment such as imprisonment at hard labor without a judicial trial. The Court wrote that “all persons within the territory of the United States” are entitled to the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including the right to a grand jury indictment for serious crimes.4Cornell Law Institute. Wong Wing v. United States The line the Court drew still holds: the government may detain someone for immigration processing, but it cannot punish them criminally without the same procedural safeguards a citizen would receive.
Limits on Immigration Detention
Due process also constrains how long the government can hold a non-citizen. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot detain a non-citizen indefinitely after ordering removal. Six months is the presumptively reasonable period. After that, if the person can show there is no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future, the government must either justify continued detention or release them.5Justia. Zadvydas v. Davis
Bond eligibility for people already in immigration detention is less settled. As of early 2026, federal courts of appeals are split on whether individuals who entered without permission can request a bond hearing from an immigration judge. Some circuits require the government to hold hearings; others, following the Board of Immigration Appeals, treat those individuals as ineligible for bond regardless of how long they have lived in the country. Your ability to challenge your detention can turn on which circuit you are in.
Equal Protection for Non-Citizens
The Equal Protection Clause forbids any state from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”2Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment When a state law singles out non-citizens for worse treatment, courts apply heightened scrutiny. How heightened depends on whether the law targets lawful residents or undocumented immigrants.
Lawful Non-Citizens: Strict Scrutiny
In Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court held that state classifications based on alienage are “inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny.” The case struck down state welfare laws that denied benefits to lawful resident aliens. Under this framework, a state that treats lawful non-citizens differently must show the classification serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest, the same demanding test courts apply to racial classifications.6Justia. Graham v. Richardson Most facially discriminatory state laws fail it.
One important exception exists. In Foley v. Connelie (1978), the Court recognized a “political function” exception: states may restrict certain government positions, such as state police officers, to citizens without triggering strict scrutiny. The rationale is that jobs involving core governmental decision-making or law enforcement discretion are tied to self-governance, and states have a legitimate interest in reserving those roles for members of the political community.7Cornell Law Institute. Alienage Classification
Undocumented Immigrants: Heightened Rational Basis
For undocumented immigrants, the Court uses a middle standard, tougher than ordinary rational basis review but not full strict scrutiny. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), Texas tried to bar undocumented children from public schools. The Court struck down the law, holding that the discrimination could not “be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.”8Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Plyler v. Doe Texas argued the law saved money, but the Court found that rationale insufficient when weighed against the lifetime consequences of denying education to children who had no control over their status. Plyler remains the leading case establishing that undocumented immigrants are “persons” entitled to equal protection.
What the Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Give Non-Citizens
Not everything in the Fourteenth Amendment reaches non-citizens. The Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only “citizens of the United States.”2Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment The Supreme Court has interpreted that clause narrowly for more than a century, but its text marks a clear boundary: certain rights tied to membership in the national political community belong to citizens alone.
Several rights outside the Fourteenth Amendment are also reserved for citizens. Federal law makes it a crime for a non-citizen to vote in elections for President, Vice President, or members of Congress, with penalties of a fine, up to one year in prison, or both.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 611 – Voting by Aliens That prohibition does not extend to state and local elections; the District of Columbia and municipalities in a few states allow non-citizens to vote in certain local elections. Federal courts require jurors to be U.S. citizens, and state courts impose the same rule.10United States Courts. Juror Qualifications, Exemptions and Excuses Federal firearms law prohibits two categories of non-citizens from possessing firearms: anyone unlawfully present in the United States, and most people admitted on nonimmigrant visas, with narrow exceptions for nonimmigrant visa holders who have a valid hunting license or fall within specific diplomatic or law enforcement categories; lawful permanent residents are not subject to these restrictions.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts
Other Constitutional Protections That Reach Non-Citizens
The Fourteenth Amendment is not the only source of constitutional rights for non-citizens. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and courts have consistently held that lawful residents are covered. For undocumented immigrants, the picture is less settled: most federal courts have assumed Fourth Amendment protections apply to people physically present in the country, but some have ruled that individuals lacking “significant voluntary connections” to the United States do not qualify.12Congress.gov. Searches and Seizures at the Border and the Fourth Amendment The gray area matters most at the border and in cases involving people who reentered after deportation.
The Sixth Amendment’s right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal cases also applies to non-citizens. In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Supreme Court held that a defense attorney must advise a non-citizen client when a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, and failure to do so is constitutionally deficient representation. When the deportation consequence is clear from the statute, the duty to give correct advice is equally clear.13Justia. Padilla v. Kentucky Many criminal convictions trigger automatic deportation, so a defendant who does not understand that risk cannot make an informed decision about a plea.
One caveat is worth flagging. Immigration removal proceedings are civil, not criminal, so the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a lawyer at government expense generally does not apply. Many non-citizens face deportation hearings without an attorney.
Why Congress Can Do What States Cannot
The Fourteenth Amendment primarily restrains states. The federal government operates under a broader set of powers over immigration, which the Supreme Court calls “plenary power.” Congress has nearly complete authority to decide who may enter the country, how long they may stay, and under what conditions they can be removed.14Congress.gov. ArtI.S8.C18.8.1 Overview of Congress’s Immigration Powers
The result is a constitutionally intentional double standard. In Mathews v. Diaz (1976), the Supreme Court explained the logic: states have no legitimate reason to treat a resident from another country differently than a resident from another state, so alienage-based state classifications deserve suspicion. But Congress is explicitly empowered to control the nation’s borders, making federal distinctions based on alienage “a routine and normally legitimate part of its business.”15Justia. Mathews v. Diaz A state law denying welfare to lawful permanent residents would almost certainly be struck down. A federal law imposing a waiting period before immigrants qualify for the same benefits has been upheld. Even so, non-citizens already inside the country retain due process protections during removal proceedings, and the Court has imposed outer limits on how far the plenary power reaches.16Congress.gov. ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.1 Overview of Immigration Plenary Power Doctrine