The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, remains one of the most consequential legal frameworks in American history. Its Equal Protection Clause—"No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"—has shaped civil rights, immigration policy, and modern debates over discrimination. But as society evolves, so do the challenges to interpreting this clause. From affirmative action to LGBTQ+ rights, the Fourteenth Amendment is at the heart of today’s most contentious legal battles.
The Fourteenth Amendment was born out of Reconstruction, aiming to secure rights for formerly enslaved Black Americans. Early cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) infamously undermined its promise by upholding "separate but equal" segregation. It wasn’t until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that the Supreme Court reversed course, declaring racial segregation unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Courts use a tiered system to evaluate equal protection claims:
- Strict Scrutiny: Applied to race, religion, or national origin. Laws must serve a "compelling state interest" and be narrowly tailored (e.g., Loving v. Virginia).
- Intermediate Scrutiny: Used for gender classifications. Laws must be "substantially related" to an "important government objective" (e.g., United States v. Virginia).
- Rational Basis Review: For all other cases. Laws need only a "legitimate government interest" (e.g., Romer v. Evans).
In 2023, the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision struck down race-conscious college admissions, arguing they violated the Equal Protection Clause. Critics warn this erases decades of progress toward racial equity, while supporters hail it as a return to "colorblind" constitutionalism. The ruling leaves open questions: Can socioeconomic status replace race as a proxy for disadvantage? Will universities find loopholes?
Same-sex marriage was legalized in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Yet recent state laws—like Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay" bill or bans on gender-affirming care for minors—test the limits of equal protection. Courts are split: Some cite Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to extend protections, while others argue these issues should be left to legislatures.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to combat racial discrimination in elections. But after Shelby County v. Holder (2013) gutted key provisions, gerrymandering has surged. Cases like Allen v. Milligan (2023) reaffirmed the VRA’s Section 2, but partisan gerrymandering—addressed in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)—remains unchecked, raising questions about political equality.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship (jus soli), a target of recent political rhetoric. Some argue for repealing it to curb "birth tourism," while others defend it as a cornerstone of inclusivity. Compare this to Europe, where jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) dominates, often creating stateless populations.
Nations like South Africa and Canada explicitly protect LGBTQ+ rights in their constitutions, while others (e.g., India) are still evolving. The U.S. approach—relying on judicial interpretation—creates fragility. For example, without a federal equality law, rights hinge on court majorities.
As AI influences hiring, policing, and lending, biases in algorithms risk violating equal protection. Courts haven’t yet ruled on whether algorithmic bias constitutes "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, but cases like State v. Loomis (2016) hint at future challenges.
Low-income and minority communities disproportionately suffer from pollution and climate disasters. Some scholars argue the Fourteenth Amendment could frame climate policies as a matter of equal protection—akin to Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)’s expansion of standing.
With federal retrenchment, states like California and New York are expanding equal protection under their own constitutions. For example, California’s In re Marriage Cases (2008) legalized same-sex marriage before Obergefell.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise is unfinished. Its interpretation will continue to shape whether "equal protection" adapts to new inequalities or remains tethered to the past. As Justice Jackson wrote in Brown: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The question is who gets to define "justice"—and how.
Copyright Statement:
Author: Advice Legal
Source: Advice Legal
The copyright of this article belongs to the author. Reproduction is not allowed without permission.
Advice Legal All rights reserved
Powered by WordPress