What Is the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment is the part of the Constitution that makes nearly everyone born in the United States a citizen and bars every state from denying people due process or the equal protection of the laws. It was ratified in 1868 to secure the rights of freed Black Americans after the Civil War. It is also why the Bill of Rights limits your state, your city, and your local police, not only Washington.
The 14th is one of three Reconstruction Amendments, ratified between the 13th in 1865 and the 15th in 1870. Our guide to all 27 amendments covers each one.
Most of the rights Americans use against their own state government run through this one amendment. Section 1 carries the promises. Sections 2 through 5 handle representation, insurrection, war debts, and enforcement.
Key facts
- Ratified July 9, 1868, by 28 of the 37 states (National Archives).
- The Court has used it to apply 20 Bill of Rights protections to the states, the latest in 2020 (McDonald v. Chicago).
- On June 30, 2026, the Court held 6-3 that children born here to parents present unlawfully or temporarily are citizens at birth, blocking the 2025 order to end birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara).
- States cannot use Section 3 to keep federal candidates off the ballot, the Court ruled 9-0 in 2024 (Trump v. Anderson).
The amendment’s first section is the part most people mean when they cite it. It 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” (Cornell Law School).
That one sentence holds four promises: the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Two of them say “person,” not “citizen,” so they protect everyone in a state, including people who are not citizens.
What Each of the Five Sections Does
Section 1 does almost all of the work in court today, and two of the other four have barely been used. Congress wrote the other sections to settle problems of 1866: how to count newly free Black Americans in the House, what to do with Confederate officials, and who would pay the war debts.
The 14th Amendment's five sections in plain words
The Section 2 penalty is the clearest example of a promise that never took effect. The Constitution Annotated, the Library of Congress’s official guide, says “no serious effort was ever made in Congress” to enforce it, and calls the section “little more than an historical curiosity” (Constitution Annotated). Its one lasting effect cuts the other way. In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the Court read its exception for “participation in rebellion, or other crime” as permission for states to bar people with felony convictions from voting, even after they finish their sentences.
Section 5 matters more than its one line suggests. Congress used it within three years to pass the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and a piece of that law survives as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute people use today to sue a state or local official who violated their rights. That lawsuit is where qualified immunity comes in. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court limited the power, holding that there “must be a congruence and proportionality” between the harm Congress targets and the law it passes.
How the Bill of Rights Reached the States
The Bill of Rights once limited only the federal government, and the 14th Amendment is how it came to limit the states. In 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that a state could ignore it (Timbs v. Indiana, citing Barron). Congressman John Bingham of Ohio, the main author of Section 1, meant the new amendment to change that, according to the National Archives.
The Court did not agree right away. In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 it read the Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that, in the words of the Constitution Annotated, it became “a superfluous reiteration” of rules states already had to follow. So the Court turned to the Due Process Clause instead and applied the Bill of Rights to the states one right at a time, a process lawyers call incorporation.
8 of the 20 rights reached the states in the 1960s, about a century after ratification, and 3 more arrived only after 2000. Each bar runs from 1868 to the year the Court applied that right to the states.
| Item | Began | Ended | Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Just compensation for taken property (5th) | 1868 | 1897 | 29 years |
| Free speech (1st) | 1868 | 1925 | 57 years |
| Free press (1st) | 1868 | 1931 | 63 years |
| Peaceful assembly (1st) | 1868 | 1937 | 69 years |
| Free exercise of religion (1st) | 1868 | 1940 | 72 years |
| No established religion (1st) | 1868 | 1947 | 79 years |
| Public trial (6th) | 1868 | 1948 | 80 years |
| No unreasonable searches (4th) | 1868 | 1949 | 81 years |
| No cruel and unusual punishment (8th) | 1868 | 1962 | 94 years |
| A lawyer if you cannot afford one (6th) | 1868 | 1963 | 95 years |
| No forced self-incrimination (5th) | 1868 | 1964 | 96 years |
| Confronting witnesses (6th) | 1868 | 1965 | 97 years |
| Speedy trial (6th) | 1868 | 1967 | 99 years |
| Calling your own witnesses (6th) | 1868 | 1967 | 99 years |
| Jury trial in criminal cases (6th) | 1868 | 1968 | 100 years |
| No double jeopardy (5th) | 1868 | 1969 | 101 years |
| No excessive bail (8th) | 1868 | 1971 | 103 years |
| Keeping and bearing arms (2nd) | 1868 | 2010 | 142 years |
| No excessive fines (8th) | 1868 | 2019 | 151 years |
| A unanimous jury to convict (6th) | 1868 | 2020 | 152 years |
Bars end in the year of the first Supreme Court case that applied each right to the states. Sources: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), footnotes 12-13; Timbs v. Indiana (2019); Ramos v. Louisiana (2020).
Clarence Earl Gideon shows what that wait cost. Charged in Florida with breaking into a poolroom, he asked the judge for a lawyer and was told Florida appointed one only in capital cases. “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel,” he answered. He defended himself, lost, and got five years in prison. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that the right to a lawyer binds the states, 95 years after ratification.
The most recent additions all came after 2000. McDonald v. City of Chicago applied the Second Amendment to the states in 2010. On February 20, 2019, the Court ruled unanimously in Tyson Timbs’s case that the Excessive Fines Clause binds the states, so Indiana had to answer whether taking a $42,000 car over a crime with a $10,000 maximum fine was excessive. And in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), the Court ended the split verdicts Louisiana and Oregon had used to convict people of serious crimes, 152 years after 1868.
A few protections still do not bind the states. The Court has never decided whether the Third Amendment’s ban on quartering soldiers applies. It held in 1884 that states need not use grand juries to charge crimes, and states still set their own rules for juries in civil cases (McDonald v. Chicago, footnote 13). That is why many states charge felonies by a prosecutor’s filing instead of an indictment, and why the 5th Amendment’s grand jury rule covers only federal cases.
How Courts Test Equal Protection
The Equal Protection Clause does not ban every law that treats groups differently. It asks how good the government’s reason is, and the answer depends on who the law sorts. Nearly every law draws lines, by age for a driver’s license or by income for a tax bracket. Courts have built three levels of review, and the level usually decides the case. Voting is one place a line drawn by wealth fails: in 1966 the Court used this clause to strike down Virginia’s $1.50 poll tax.
The Supreme Court restated all three in United States v. Skrmetti in June 2025. The ladder below uses the Court’s own words from that opinion.
The three levels of equal protection review, by who a law sorts
- Most laws: taxes, licenses, business rules Any conceivable reason
A court upholds the line if "any reasonably conceivable state of facts" could justify it, the standard from FCC v. Beach Communications (1993).
- Laws that sort by age or disability Any conceivable reason
Still the easiest test, but not a blank check. In Cleburne (1985) the Court struck down a Texas city's refusal to permit a group home for people with intellectual disabilities.
- Laws that sort by sex An important goal, substantially related
Intermediate scrutiny since Craig v. Boren (1976). United States v. Virginia (1996) used it to open the Virginia Military Institute to women.
- Laws that sort by race, national origin, or state laws on noncitizens A compelling goal, narrowly tailored
Strict scrutiny. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) applied it to end race-conscious college admissions.
| Step | What the government must show | The government's burden to defend the law |
|---|---|---|
| Most laws: taxes, licenses, business rules. A court upholds the line if "any reasonably conceivable state of facts" could justify it, the standard from FCC v. Beach Communications (1993). | Any conceivable reason | Easiest (rational basis) |
| Laws that sort by age or disability. Still the easiest test, but not a blank check. In Cleburne (1985) the Court struck down a Texas city's refusal to permit a group home for people with intellectual disabilities. | Any conceivable reason | Easiest (rational basis) |
| Laws that sort by sex. Intermediate scrutiny since Craig v. Boren (1976). United States v. Virginia (1996) used it to open the Virginia Military Institute to women. | An important goal, substantially related | Harder (intermediate scrutiny) |
| Laws that sort by race, national origin, or state laws on noncitizens. Strict scrutiny. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) applied it to end race-conscious college admissions. | A compelling goal, narrowly tailored | Hardest (strict scrutiny) |
Source: United States v. Skrmetti (2025), majority opinion and Justice Barrett's concurrence, restating Cleburne (1985), United States v. Virginia (1996), and Students for Fair Admissions (2023).
Which rung a law lands on is usually the whole fight. In Skrmetti, families challenging Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors argued it sorted by sex, which would have meant intermediate scrutiny. The Court held 6-3 that the law sorts by age and medical use instead, applied rational basis review, and upheld it. It did not decide whether transgender people as a group get heightened protection, writing that it “has not previously held” they do. Our gender-affirming care explainer covers what the ruling means for families.
In a concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the list of protected groups “has remained virtually closed,” quoting a lower court that the Court “has not recognized any new constitutionally protected classes in over four decades.” Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment argue it would move sex from the middle rung toward the top one.
Landmark 14th Amendment Cases, 1868 to 2015
The amendment’s meaning swung sharply in its first century. It was ratified in 1868. The Court narrowed it in 1873 and 1883 and used it to bless segregation in 1896. Then it reversed course in 1954, and built on that in 1967, 1971, and 2015.
- Amendment ratified Former Confederate states had to ratify it to regain seats in Congress. (source)
- Slaughter-House Cases narrow it The Privileges or Immunities Clause is read almost out of the text. (source)
- Civil Rights Cases limit it to government Congress cannot use it to bar discrimination by private inns and theaters. (source)
- Plessy upholds segregation "Separate but equal" railroad cars are held to satisfy equal protection. (source)
- Brown ends school segregation Separate schools are held "inherently unequal." (source)
- Loving strikes interracial marriage bans Virginia's ban falls under both equal protection and due process. (source)
- Reed strikes a sex-based law First time the Court used equal protection against sex discrimination. (source)
- Obergefell requires marriage equality Same-sex couples win the right to marry in every state. (source)
Sources: U.S. Senate; Supreme Court opinions via Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
How the Supreme Court read the 14th Amendment, 1868 to 2015: 1868: Amendment ratified (Former Confederate states had to ratify it to regain seats in Congress.). 1873: Slaughter-House Cases narrow it (The Privileges or Immunities Clause is read almost out of the text.). 1883: Civil Rights Cases limit it to government (Congress cannot use it to bar discrimination by private inns and theaters.). 1896: Plessy upholds segregation ("Separate but equal" railroad cars are held to satisfy equal protection.). 1954: Brown ends school segregation (Separate schools are held "inherently unequal."). 1967: Loving strikes interracial marriage bans (Virginia's ban falls under both equal protection and due process.). 1971: Reed strikes a sex-based law (First time the Court used equal protection against sex discrimination.). 2015: Obergefell requires marriage equality (Same-sex couples win the right to marry in every state.).
1868: The amendment was ratified on July 9, and Secretary of State William Seward certified it on July 28. Congress made ratification a condition for former Confederate states to regain their seats.
1873: In the Slaughter-House Cases, the Court held that the privileges of national citizenship covered only a short list, such as travel to the capital. That left the clause with almost nothing to do, which is why later rights cases ran through due process instead.
1883: The Civil Rights Cases struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which barred discrimination in inns, theaters, and railroads. “Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment,” the Court wrote. Only government action counts, a rule known as the state action doctrine.
1896: Plessy v. Ferguson upheld Louisiana’s law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers.
1954: Brown v. Board of Education held that segregated public schools violate equal protection.
1967: Loving v. Virginia struck down laws banning interracial marriage.
1971: Reed v. Reed struck down an Idaho law that preferred men over women as estate administrators. It was the Court’s first use of equal protection against a sex-based law.
2015: Obergefell v. Hodges held that states must license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples. Our same-sex marriage explainer covers where that right stands now.
Section 3 and the Insurrection Ban
Section 3 bars anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office again. It was written for former Confederate officials, and Congress used its power to lift the ban broadly. In 1872 it removed the bar for almost everyone except the highest former officials, and in 1898 it removed it for the rest (Constitution Annotated).
The section came back into court after January 6, 2021. On September 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge removed Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin from office for taking part in the attack on the Capitol. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group that brought the case, said it was the first time since 1869 that a court had disqualified an official under Section 3 (CREW).
The Colorado Supreme Court then ordered Donald Trump off the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot. On March 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed without a dissent. “The Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,” the unsigned opinion said (Trump v. Anderson). The Court pointed to the Enforcement Act of 1870, which let federal prosecutors sue to remove disqualified officials, as the kind of law Section 3 needs. That law was later repealed. The one still on the books, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, makes insurrection a federal crime and bars anyone convicted of it from federal office.
States can still apply Section 3 to their own state and local officials, which is how the Griffin ruling stood. For federal office, Section 3 now works only through a conviction under that criminal law or a new law from Congress. The other eligibility rule in play for 2028 is the two-term limit, covered in our 22nd Amendment explainer.
Where the 14th Amendment Fights Stand in 2026
The amendment is at the center of several of the biggest legal fights of this decade, and most of them now have a final answer. Each entry carries its status as of the date shown.
Where each current 14th Amendment fight stands
As of September 26, 2026
- The 2025 order to end birthright citizenship (Executive Order 14160) Final ruling, order blocked
In Trump v. Barbara on June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the children the order targets are citizens at birth, relying on Wong Kim Ark (1898). (source)
- The narrower 2026 birthright order (Executive Order 14418) Blocked by a court
A federal judge blocked it for a class of families on September 2, 2026, in CASA v. Trump. (source)
- Using Section 3 against federal candidates Final ruling, only Congress can
Trump v. Anderson held on March 4, 2024, that states cannot enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. (source)
- Bans on gender-affirming care for minors Final ruling, bans upheld
United States v. Skrmetti upheld Tennessee's ban 6-3 on June 18, 2025, under rational basis review. (source)
- Race-conscious college admissions Final ruling, ended
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard held on June 29, 2023, that they violate the Equal Protection Clause. (source)
- Marriage for same-sex couples Final ruling, Obergefell stands
The Court turned down Kim Davis's request to revisit Obergefell on November 10, 2025. (source)
- California guidance on telling parents a student's gender identity Blocked by a court, emergency order
In Mirabelli v. Bonta on March 2, 2026, an emergency order reinstated a district court injunction against the guidance; Education Week called it an apparent 6-3 decision. (source)
Source: Supreme Court of the United States; U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland; Education Week
For families, the citizenship orders matter most. The June 2026 ruling means every child born on U.S. soil to parents covered by the 2025 order is a citizen, and the new August order is blocked for now. Our birthright citizenship explainer walks through both orders and what to keep on hand. For the ruling that ended race-conscious admissions and what it left in place, see the affirmative action explainer.
The Honest Disagreement Over the 14th Amendment
Judges and scholars who agree on the outcomes above still argue over how the amendment should work. Three debates matter most.
Which clause should carry the Bill of Rights. Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for years that incorporation belongs under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the route Slaughter-House closed. Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed in Timbs that it “may well be” the right vehicle “as an original matter.” The results would mostly match, but the choice matters for rights the Constitution does not list.
Rights the text does not name. The Court has read “liberty” in the Due Process Clause to protect some unlisted rights, such as marriage and raising your children. In Dobbs (2022), it held that abortion is not one of them because it is not “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history. Supporters of that test say it keeps judges from writing their own views into the Constitution. Critics say it freezes rights at the views of 1868, when women could not vote. Our due process explainer lays out both sides.
How far the Section 3 ruling reached. All nine justices agreed Colorado could not remove Trump from the ballot. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote separately that the majority went further than it needed to by requiring a new federal law, deciding “not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future.”
What the 14th Amendment Does Not Do
The amendment is broad, but it has firm limits, and knowing them helps you pick the right tool.
- It limits governments, not private people. A private employer, landlord, or store is not bound by it. Federal laws like the Civil Rights Act fill much of that gap.
- It does not ban every unequal law. Most distinctions get the easiest test and survive.
- It has not brought every right to the states. The grand jury rule, civil juries, and the Third Amendment still apply only to the federal government.
- It does not guarantee the vote to people with felony convictions. Under Richardson v. Ramirez, states decide, and the rules range widely.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the 14th Amendment protect people who are not citizens?
Yes, in part. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect “any person” in a state, citizen or not. The Privileges or Immunities Clause covers only citizens.
How is the 14th Amendment different from the 13th and 15th?
They are the three Reconstruction Amendments. The 13th (1865) abolished slavery, the 14th (1868) set out citizenship and equal protection, and the 15th (1870) barred denying the vote because of race.
Who wrote the 14th Amendment?
Representative John Bingham of Ohio was the main author of Section 1. Congress passed the full amendment on June 13, 1866, and sent it to the states.
Has Donald Trump been found to violate the 14th Amendment?
On Section 3, no final ruling says so. The Colorado Supreme Court found in 2023 that he engaged in insurrection, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in 2024 on other grounds: only Congress can enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. It never decided the insurrection question. On citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 2026 that his 2025 birthright citizenship order violated the Citizenship Clause.
Can the 14th Amendment be repealed?
Only by another constitutional amendment, which needs two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
What You Can Do
-
If a state or local official violated your rights, you can sue. Section 1983 lets you bring a federal case against police, jail staff, school officials, and other state actors. Write down names, dates, and witnesses, then contact your local ACLU affiliate or a civil rights lawyer. The qualified immunity explainer covers the hurdles.
-
If your family is affected by a birthright order, keep your child’s birth certificate and passport application records. As of September 2026, courts have blocked both orders. The ACLU’s birthright citizenship case page tracks the new order in court.
-
Ask your members of Congress whether they support a law to enforce Section 3. Trump v. Anderson left that job to Congress, and the only law on the books requires a criminal conviction for insurrection. Ask for an answer in writing. Our letter-writing guide shows how.
-
Vote on November 3, 2026. The Senate confirms the justices who decide what equal protection means. Vote.gov links to every state’s registration check.