The Fourteenth Amendment is doing heavy work in three very different fights right now: whether officials who took part in the January 6 Capitol attack can hold public office, whether children born on U.S. soil to undocumented or temporary-visa parents are citizens, and whether the president can bypass the debt ceiling to keep paying the nation’s bills. Each of those fights turns on a different section of the amendment — Section 3 on insurrection, Section 1 on citizenship, and Section 4 on the public debt — and in each, recent Supreme Court decisions have sharply narrowed who gets to enforce the text.
Section 3 and Disqualifying Insurrectionists
Section 3 bars anyone from federal or state office who previously took 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.” Congress can lift the disability by a two-thirds vote of each chamber, and it did so broadly through the Amnesty Act of 1872 and a follow-up act in 1898 that cleared the remaining Civil War-era disqualifications.1Constitution Annotated. Overview of the Insurrection Clause For more than a century the clause sat unused. January 6, 2021, changed that.
The Griffin Removal in New Mexico
The first successful modern application came in September 2022, when New Mexico state District Court Judge Francis Mathew ordered Otero County commissioner Couy Griffin removed from office. Three New Mexico residents, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), brought the case as a quo warranto action. The court found that Griffin’s conduct at the Capitol — mobilizing supporters, breaching security barriers, and rallying rioters with a bullhorn — amounted to engaging in an insurrection after he had sworn an oath.2NPR. New Mexico County Commissioner Removed From Office Over Role in Capitol Riot Griffin was barred from any federal, state, civil, or military office for life. The judge made clear that a criminal conviction was not a prerequisite, because Section 3 sets a qualification for office rather than imposes a criminal penalty.3Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Couy Griffin Case: Frequently Asked Questions The New Mexico Supreme Court declined to disturb the ruling.4ABC News. Trump Faces 14th Amendment Suits; Couy Griffin Speaks
Cawthorn and Greene
Voters also tried the clause against sitting members of Congress, with mixed results. In North Carolina, a Section 3 challenge to Representative Madison Cawthorn tested a defense theory that the 1872 Amnesty Act had permanently lifted the disability for all future insurrectionists. The Fourth Circuit rejected that reading in May 2022, holding the Act was backward-looking and cleared only pre-1872 conduct.5FindLaw. Cawthorn v. Amalfi The case became moot when Cawthorn lost his primary on May 17, 2022.6Lawfare. After Cawthorn Ruling, Can Trump Be Saved by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment A parallel challenge to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene failed on the facts. Administrative Judge Charles Beaudrot found “insufficient factual evidence” that Greene had personally engaged in the insurrection after being sworn in on January 3, 2021, and treated her public rhetoric as protected First Amendment speech. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger adopted the findings on May 6, 2022.7Courthouse News Service. Challenge Over Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Eligibility Fails
Trump v. Anderson
The biggest Section 3 case reached the Supreme Court through Colorado. Six Republican and unaffiliated voters, backed by CREW, sued in September 2023 to keep Donald Trump off the 2024 primary ballot. A state trial court found Trump had engaged in insurrection but concluded he was not an “officer” under the amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed 4-3 in December 2023, holding the presidency is an office covered by Section 3, that January 6 was an insurrection, and that Trump had engaged in it. It ordered Secretary of State Jena Griswold to exclude him from the Republican primary ballot.8International Bar Association. US Supreme Court Rules That Disqualifying Individual Under 14th Amendment Is for Congress9Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100
On March 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed. In Trump v. Anderson, all nine justices agreed that states cannot enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. The per curiam opinion warned that state-by-state adjudication would produce a “patchwork” of conflicting results and could “sever the direct link” between the national government and the people. The majority went further and held that Section 5 of the amendment gives Congress the exclusive authority to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates through legislation.10SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Remove Trump From Ballot for Insurrection Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote separately to say the Court should have stopped at the state-power question. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred only in the judgment, arguing the majority reached out to decide “novel constitutional questions” that would “shut the door on other potential means of federal enforcement.”11Justia. Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 The Court did not decide whether Trump had committed insurrection.8International Bar Association. US Supreme Court Rules That Disqualifying Individual Under 14th Amendment Is for Congress
Whether the Clause Is Self-Executing
Whether Section 3 disqualifies a person automatically, or requires implementing legislation, has been contested since 1868. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase initially said the clause operated on its own, then reversed course in a lower-court opinion holding that Congress needed to act. Congress did act, through the Enforcement Act of 1870, which created a quo warranto mechanism for removing disqualified officials; those specific provisions were repealed in 1948.12New York City Bar Association. Historical Context, Current Challenges, and Recommendations Regarding the Disqualification Clause
Critics of Anderson argue the ruling effectively neuters Section 3: a simple majority in either chamber can now block enforcement legislation, while the Constitution itself requires a two-thirds supermajority to remove a disqualification. The Court pointed to the existing federal insurrection statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, as an example of valid enforcement legislation, though prosecutions under that statute are rare and demand a higher burden of proof than civil disqualification.13Lawfare. What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee introduced H.R. 1405 in February 2021 to let the Attorney General bring civil disqualification actions before a three-judge district court under a “clear and convincing evidence” standard. It was referred to a Judiciary subcommittee in April 2021 and did not advance.14Congress.gov. H.R. 1405, 117th Congress
Section 1 and Birthright Citizenship
The opening sentence of Section 1 provides that “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.” It was written to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black Americans could not be citizens. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born on U.S. soil to resident immigrant parents is a citizen by birth.15NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Know Your Rights: Birthright Citizenship
The 2025 Executive Order
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” It directed federal agencies to stop recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born after February 19, 2025, if the mother was unlawfully present or on a temporary visa, unless the father was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was originally meant to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.16The White House. Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship Challengers counter that the text and more than a century of settled law, including Wong Kim Ark, already resolve the question, and that the reinterpretation would “cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions.”17SCOTUSblog. The Key Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case
The Litigation
Judges in New Hampshire, Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the order. On February 10, 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire enjoined it in a lawsuit brought by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU, and immigrant and civil rights groups.15NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Know Your Rights: Birthright Citizenship On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issued a preliminary injunction in Barbara v. Trump barring enforcement against a class of babies born after February 20, 2025, and provisionally certified a nationwide class.18Oyez. Trump v. Barbara
Then the Supreme Court intervened on the remedy side. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., decided June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6-3 that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue “universal” or nationwide injunctions, finding such orders “conspicuously nonexistent” in historical equity practice. Justice Barrett’s opinion vacated the sweeping injunctions freezing the order nationwide, but left lower courts free to fashion narrower relief for plaintiffs with standing.19Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. CASA, Inc. The Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Barbara on December 5, 2025, and heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, with a decision expected by late June or early July 2026. Early analysis suggested the justices were unlikely to accept the administration’s reading of the Citizenship Clause.20SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Barbara
Equal Protection and Due Process Within Section 1
Section 1 does more than confer citizenship. Its Equal Protection Clause bars states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and its Due Process Clause bars states from depriving anyone of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Together they have produced more Supreme Court litigation than perhaps any other constitutional text — from Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturning school segregation, to Loving v. Virginia (1967) striking down anti-miscegenation laws, to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) recognizing same-sex marriage under both clauses, to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) invalidating race-conscious college admissions.21Brennan Center for Justice. Landmark Supreme Court Cases22National Constitution Center. 10 Huge Supreme Court Cases About the 14th Amendment
The Court reviews equal protection claims through three tiers: strict scrutiny for racial classifications, intermediate scrutiny for sex-based classifications, and rational basis for most others.23Justia. Equal Protection Cases The tier often decides the case. In United States v. Skrmetti (2025), the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors 6-3, ruling that the law classified by age and medical diagnosis rather than by sex or transgender status and needed to clear only rational basis review.24Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Skrmetti The dissent read the same law as a sex-based classification requiring heightened scrutiny it could not survive.25KFF. What Are the Implications of the Skrmetti Ruling Under the substantive branch of the Due Process Clause, the modern Court protects personal liberties like marriage, child-rearing, and contraception while giving economic regulation a deferential review.26Justia. Due Process of Law The clause is also the vehicle through which nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states.27Constitution Annotated. Due Process
Section 4 and the Debt Ceiling
Section 4 provides that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” It was written to protect Union war debts and repudiate Confederate ones, but the text reaches further than that. In Perry v. United States (1935), the only Supreme Court opinion to interpret the clause, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote that the phrase “validity of the public debt” carries a “broader connotation” than Civil War obligations and “embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations,” and that Congress cannot use its monetary powers to “alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements.”28Constitution Annotated. Interpretation of the Public Debt Clause Justice Harlan F. Stone declined to join those sections, no later majority has endorsed the reading, and its status remains that of a plurality.29Cornell Law Institute. Interpretation of the Public Debt Clause
The clause returned to public debate during the 2023 debt ceiling standoff. With Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warning the borrowing limit would be hit by early June, 11 senators including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren urged President Joe Biden to invoke Section 4 to bypass the ceiling, and Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe argued the amendment requires the government to pay its obligations on time and in full. The administration declined. Yellen called the move “legally questionable” and warned it would trigger litigation rather than resolve the crisis. Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said the amendment “can’t solve our challenges now.” Biden expressed interest in a future legal test without treating it as a workable immediate option.30CNN. 14th Amendment Debt Ceiling No court has ruled on whether Section 4 lets the president override the debt ceiling unilaterally, and legal analysts remain divided on whether an originalist reading of the clause supports that use.31National Conference of State Legislatures. The Debt Ceiling and the 14th Amendment: The Jury Is Still Out