How Governments Use the Fourteenth Amendment to Protect Citizens

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, is one of the most consequential amendments to the United States Constitution. It was originally designed to secure the rights of formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, but its broad language has allowed it to become the foundation for countless protections of individual liberty and equality. Governments at the federal, state, and local levels rely on the amendment both to defend citizens against arbitrary government action and to enforce equal treatment under the law. This article explores the major clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and how they have been applied in practice to safeguard civil rights, due process, and fundamental freedoms.

The Birth of the Fourteenth Amendment

The post-Civil War era demanded a constitutional reset. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, but Southern states immediately enacted “Black Codes” that severely restricted the freedom of African Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to address these injustices by guaranteeing citizenship and equal legal standing. It contains several key provisions: the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Over time, these provisions have given governments powerful tools to protect citizens from discrimination and procedural unfairness.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause states: “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has been the primary constitutional weapon against discriminatory laws and practices. Governments—especially state and federal courts—use it to strike down statutes that treat people differently based on race, gender, national origin, or other suspect classifications.

Historical Application: Ending Segregation

The most famous application of the Equal Protection Clause came in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public schools was inherently unequal. Over the following decades, courts applied the same reasoning to dismantle segregation in housing, transportation, public accommodations, and employment. The clause does not only protect against intentional discrimination; modern courts also use it to review policies that produce a disparate impact on protected groups, though with varying levels of scrutiny.

Gender Equality

The Equal Protection Clause has been critical to advancing gender equality. In Reed v. Reed (1971) and Craig v. Boren (1976), the Supreme Court established that laws classifying by gender must serve an “important governmental objective” and be substantially related to that objective. This so-called “intermediate scrutiny” standard has been used to strike down sex-based discriminatory laws, such as those limiting property rights, employment opportunities, and access to military service. Governments continue to rely on the clause to defend equal pay, protect against pregnancy discrimination, and secure equitable treatment in education.

Voting Rights and Apportionment

The Equal Protection Clause also governs voting rights and political representation. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that state legislative districts must be roughly equal in population—the “one person, one vote” principle. This has ensured fair representation and prevented rural overrepresentation. More recently, the clause has been used to challenge racial gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other restrictions that disproportionately affect minority voters. Governments can defend voting reforms by showing they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored, but the courts remain the ultimate arbiter of whether those reforms violate equal protection. Read more about the Fourteenth Amendment’s history at the National Constitution Center.

Due Process Clause

The Due Process Clause declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This guarantee has two distinct dimensions: procedural due process and substantive due process. Both are essential tools for protecting citizens from arbitrary government action.

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process requires that before the government takes away a person’s life, liberty, or property, it must provide fair procedures. This includes adequate notice of charges, an opportunity to be heard, an impartial decision-maker, and the right to present evidence. Governments rely on these requirements to ensure that their actions—such as terminating welfare benefits, revoking a professional license, or deporting a non-citizen—follow established legal processes. Courts have developed a balancing test that weighs the private interest at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government’s interest. For example, in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), the Court used this test to determine what process is due when the Social Security Administration disables benefits.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process protects fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution, even when the government uses proper procedures. The Supreme Court has identified liberties such as the right to marry, the right to have children, the right to privacy, and the right to refuse medical treatment as protected under this doctrine. Landmark cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) (contraception), Roe v. Wade (1973) (abortion), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) (same-sex marriage) all relied on substantive due process. Governments are required to show that any law infringing on these fundamental rights serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored. While substantive due process remains controversial, it continues to be a critical shield for personal autonomy against legislative overreach.

Protection for Economic Liberty

Although the Supreme Court largely abandoned the economic substantive due process of the Lochner era (which struck down wage and hour laws), modern governments still use due process to guard against arbitrary economic regulations. Courts apply a rational basis test, requiring only that a law be reasonably related to a legitimate government objective. This has allowed states to regulate business practices, property use, and contracts so long as the regulation is not wholly irrational or vindictive. The Due Process Clause thus provides a floor below which economic liberty cannot fall without a compelling reason.

Incorporation Doctrine

The Incorporation Doctrine is the legal principle that the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Originally, the Bill of Rights only restricted the federal government. The Supreme Court began selectively “incorporating” specific guarantees in the early 20th century, and today nearly all provisions of the first eight amendments have been applied to state and local governments.

Rights Incorporated Over Time

Important rights that have been incorporated include:

  • First Amendment freedoms: speech, press, religion, assembly, petition (starting with Gitlow v. New York, 1925).
  • Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).
  • Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination (Malloy v. Hogan, 1964) and double jeopardy (Benton v. Maryland, 1969).
  • Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963), confrontation of witnesses, speedy trial, and jury trial.
  • Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment (Robinson v. California, 1962) and excessive bail.

Incorporation ensures that state governments cannot violate citizens’ federal constitutional rights. Law enforcement agencies, school boards, and state legislatures all operate under the same constraints as the federal government. This uniformity protects citizens from a patchwork of legal standards and is fundamental to modern civil liberties. Learn more about incorporation at Cornell Legal Information Institute.

Unincorporated Rights

A few Bill of Rights provisions remain unincorporated, such as the Third Amendment (quartering soldiers) and the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury indictment. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), settling a long-standing controversy. The Court has also declined to incorporate some elements of the Seventh Amendment’s civil jury trial right. Nonetheless, the Incorporation Doctrine has been one of the most powerful tools for protecting individual rights from state action.

The Fourteenth Amendment has generated more Supreme Court litigation than any other constitutional provision. Landmark cases define the boundaries of government power and individual rights. Below are key areas where the amendment has been tested and refined.

Racial Equality and Affirmative Action

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and later cases like Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Court held that race-conscious admissions policies in higher education could survive equal protection scrutiny if they are narrowly tailored to achieve diversity as a compelling interest. More recently, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) overturned that precedent, holding that race-based admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause. This illustrates that the amendment evolves with societal understanding, and governments must constantly adjust their policies to meet constitutional requirements.

Voting Rights and Felon Disenfranchisement

The Fourteenth Amendment itself includes a penalty for states that deny the vote: reduction of representation in Congress. That provision has never been enforced, but Section 2 has been cited in debates over felon disenfranchisement laws. In Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that felony disenfranchisement does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as the Fourteenth Amendment’s own language seems to permit it. Some states have since reformed their laws, while others continue to disenfranchise large numbers of citizens, disproportionately affecting minorities. Governments are now grappling with whether these policies meet modern standards of equal protection.

Same-Sex Marriage and Family Rights

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court used both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Court reasoned that the liberty protected by due process includes the right to marry, and that denial of that right to same-sex couples violated equal protection. Governments at all levels were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize their marriages from other jurisdictions. This case demonstrates how the two clauses can work together to protect fundamental rights.

Undocumented Immigrants and Citizenship

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This clause underpins birthright citizenship, a principle that has been debated but upheld by the courts. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law denying free public education to undocumented children, holding that the Equal Protection Clause protects all persons, not just citizens. State and federal governments must now ensure that their laws do not discriminate against non-citizens without a substantial justification. Follow ongoing litigation about birthright citizenship on SCOTUSblog.

Modern Applications and Future Directions

The Fourteenth Amendment continues to be a living tool for protecting citizens. Courts are increasingly asked to apply its principles to new technologies, reproductive rights, and artificial intelligence. For example, the use of algorithms in criminal sentencing and predictive policing raises equal protection concerns if it disproportionately targets minorities. Governments at the state level are passing laws to regulate these technologies, and the courts will test them against the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees.

Data Privacy and Surveillance

In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court held that the government’s acquisition of cell phone location records requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, but the Court also hinted that substantive due process may protect a reasonable expectation of privacy. States are experimenting with privacy legislation, but the Fourteenth Amendment provides a constitutional floor. As surveillance technologies become more pervasive, citizens may rely on due process to challenge mass data collection.

Reproductive Rights Post-Dobbs

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a right to abortion. However, the amendment still protects other reproductive liberties, such as the right to contraception (reaffirmed in Griswold and Eisenstadt v. Baird). Some states have enshrined reproductive rights in their own constitutions, while others have enacted strict abortion bans. The Equal Protection Clause may be invoked in the future to challenge laws that deny reproductive healthcare in a way that disproportionately burdens women.

Economic Inequality and the Privileges or Immunities Clause

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was virtually nullified by the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), has seen a small renaissance. Some legal scholars and judges argue that it should protect fundamental rights not covered by the Due Process Clause, such as the right to travel and the right to engage in common occupations. Governments could use this clause to ensure that state laws do not arbitrarily restrict economic opportunities, though the Supreme Court has been reluctant to revive it broadly. Explore the Privileges or Immunities Clause on the ABA website.

Conclusion

The Fourteenth Amendment remains the constitutional bedrock for protecting citizens from government overreach and discrimination. From the Equal Protection Clause to the Due Process Clause and the Incorporation Doctrine, governments at every level rely on these provisions to enforce fairness, equality, and procedural integrity. Landmark cases have expanded the amendment’s reach, but the text itself has not changed since 1868. Each generation must interpret and apply its principles to new challenges, ensuring that the promise of liberty and equal protection endures. As society evolves, the Fourteenth Amendment will continue to be the legal framework through which citizens seek justice and hold governments accountable.

Author’s note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal questions, consult a licensed attorney.