What the 14th Amendment actually says
Section 1 is the famous one. It's one long sentence, but it packs four separate promises:
- Citizenship Clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."
- Privileges or Immunities Clause: states can't abridge the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens.
- Due Process Clause: no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
- Equal Protection Clause: no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Sections 2 through 4 dealt with representation, barring certain ex-Confederate officials from office, and Civil War debts. Section 5 gives Congress power to enforce all of it "by appropriate legislation."
- Passed by Congress
- June 1866
- Ratified
- July 9, 1868
- Applies to
- States (the "state action" requirement)
- Most-cited parts
- Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
Why it was written: Reconstruction and Dred Scott
In 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford declared that Black Americans could not be citizens. The Civil War and the 13th Amendment (1865) ended slavery, but Southern states quickly passed "Black Codes" to keep freed people in near-servitude.
Congress responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, then worried a future Congress or court could undo it. The fix was to put the core principles into the Constitution itself. The Citizenship Clause directly overruled Dred Scott.
Constitutions usually get rewritten after something breaks badly. The 14th Amendment came out of the bloodiest war in American history, which explains its ambition. It wasn't tweaking the old order; it was trying to redraw the relationship between citizens and their states.
The early setbacks: how courts narrowed it
For decades, the Supreme Court read the amendment narrowly.
- Slaughter-House Cases
- 83 U.S. 36 (1873): read Privileges or Immunities so narrowly it nearly vanished
- Civil Rights Cases
- 109 U.S. 3 (1883): the amendment limits states, not private businesses
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- 163 U.S. 537 (1896): "separate but equal" upheld
There were bright spots. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), held that a San Francisco ordinance enforced only against Chinese laundry owners violated equal protection. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), confirmed that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents was a citizen. That case sits at the center of today's birthright citizenship debate.
But Plessy v. Ferguson cast a long shadow. Jim Crow segregation stood on it for almost 60 years. Justice John Marshall Harlan's lone dissent ("Our Constitution is color-blind") turned out to be the version history remembered.
The 14th Amendment's comeback: landmark cases
| Case | Clause | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Gitlow v. New York (1925) | Due Process | Free speech assumed to bind states; incorporation begins |
| Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | Equal Protection | School segregation unconstitutional; Plessy repudiated |
| Loving v. Virginia (1967) | Both | Bans on interracial marriage struck down |
| Reed v. Reed (1971) | Equal Protection | First win against sex discrimination in a state law |
| Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) | Both | Same-sex marriage protected nationwide |
| SFFA v. Harvard (2023) | Equal Protection / Title VI | Race-conscious college admissions ended |
The quiet revolution was incorporation. Through the Due Process Clause, the Court applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states one right at a time: speech, searches (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961), counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963), and guns (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)). Before that, the Bill of Rights only limited the federal government.
Equal protection and due process today, plus the Korea comparison
Modern equal protection runs on tiers. Race and national origin get strict scrutiny, sex gets intermediate scrutiny, and most other classifications get rational basis review. The full breakdown is on our levels of scrutiny page, and the clause itself gets its own equal protection page.
Due process has two flavors. Procedural due process asks whether you got fair notice and a hearing. Substantive due process protects certain rights no matter the procedure, which is where the big fights over privacy and abortion happened. See the due process page for both.
| U.S. 14th Amendment | Korean Constitution | |
|---|---|---|
| Equality | Equal Protection Clause (binds states) | Art. 11: all citizens equal before the law |
| Due process | Due Process Clause | Art. 12(1): no punishment without due process of law |
| Citizenship | Birthright (jus soli) | By descent (jus sanguinis), Nationality Act |
Cash Note
청년문화예술패스 하반기 추가 발급 — 2006·2007년생 최대 20만 원, 11월 30일까지
39 readers so far
Make Korean friends & friends from around the world learning Korean
Chat easily with people from many countries who love Korea.
Beauty UP
대학생 가성비 기초 루틴 — 꼭 필요한 3단계만 남기기
106 readers so far
Psych UP
나의 돈 성향 테스트｜저축 다람쥐? 오늘만 사는 플렉서?
2 people have taken it so far
Criticism and ongoing debates
Originalists argue that judges have stretched the amendment far beyond what its 1868 framers expected, especially through substantive due process. Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly suggested reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead, as a more honest textual home for unenumerated rights.
Others argue the opposite: that courts gutted the amendment early on (Slaughter-House, the Civil Rights Cases) and the "state action" limit still leaves private discrimination to Congress. Section 5 has its own limit too. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court required "congruence and proportionality" between a harm and Congress's fix.
Section 3 even made headlines again. In Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), the Court held states cannot enforce Section 3's insurrection bar against federal candidates; Congress has to act.
Here's the part that still gets me: a text from 1868 keeps producing brand-new arguments in 2026. Words like "liberty" and "equal" don't come with instructions. Every generation has to decide what they mean, and that fight is the 14th Amendment's real legacy.
Using the 14th Amendment in exams and papers
- Structure an answer by clause: name which clause (Equal Protection? Due Process?), the test the Court uses, then the case.
- Timeline essays: Dred Scott → 14th Amendment → Plessy → Brown. It's the cleanest arc in constitutional history.
- Korean study material: Constitutional Rights of Psychopaths and Their Limits: Standards for Restricting Fundamental Rights Through Criminal Responsibility, Human Dignity, Personal Liberty and Equality walks through how equality and liberty limits work under the Korean Constitution, a good companion for comparison papers.
- What are the 5 sections of the 14th Amendment?
- Section 1 (citizenship, due process, equal protection), Section 2 (apportionment), Section 3 (disqualification for insurrection), Section 4 (public debt), and Section 5 (congressional enforcement power).
- Does the 14th Amendment apply to non-citizens?
- Yes. Due process and equal protection cover "any person," which courts have applied to non-citizens, as in Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Plyler v. Doe.
- What is incorporation?
- The process by which the Supreme Court applied most Bill of Rights protections to state governments through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- Does the 14th Amendment stop private discrimination?
- Not directly. It limits government ("state action"); private discrimination is mostly addressed by statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
References and official sources
- 14th Amendment, Primary Documents. archives.gov
- Constitution Annotated, Fourteenth Amendment. congress.gov
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Justia
- Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Justia
- Equal protection, Wex. Cornell LII
- 대한민국헌법 제11조·제12조. 국가법령정보센터