History of the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment

Citizenship and Birthright Citizenship

The 14th Amendment transformed American citizenship after the Civil War by declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the United States and the state in which they reside. This Citizenship Clause overturned the logic of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, and created a national constitutional guarantee of citizenship.

Birthright citizenship has remained one of the amendment’s most important and contested principles. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that a person born in the United States to immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Modern debates over immigration and executive power often return to this clause, with legal scholars emphasizing that birthright citizenship is rooted in constitutional text rather than presidential discretion.

The amendment’s early citizenship history also included limits and exclusions. In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court denied automatic 14th Amendment citizenship to a Native man who had left his tribe, a gap later addressed by federal law through the Indian Citizenship Act. These cases show how the amendment created a broad citizenship principle while still leaving major struggles over inclusion.

Origins, Text, and Reconstruction History

The 14th Amendment was a central achievement of Reconstruction. Passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868, it was designed to secure the legal meaning of emancipation, protect formerly enslaved people, and prevent states from denying basic civil rights. Its five sections address citizenship, privileges or immunities, due process, equal protection, apportionment, disqualification from office, Confederate debt, and congressional enforcement.

Section 1 contains the amendment’s most famous guarantees: citizenship, privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection. These clauses became the foundation for later constitutional law involving racial justice, gender equality, voting rights, criminal procedure, privacy, education, marriage, and state accountability.

Early Supreme Court interpretation limited some parts of the amendment. The Slaughter-House Cases narrowly interpreted the Privileges or Immunities Clause, reducing its future use. Bradwell v. Illinois similarly rejected a woman’s claim that the clause protected her right to practice law. Over time, however, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses became powerful tools for applying constitutional rights against the states and challenging discriminatory laws.

Section 3, Insurrection, and Disqualification

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars certain former officeholders from holding office again if they swore an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Originally created to prevent former Confederates from returning to power after the Civil War, the clause has gained renewed attention in connection with January 6, 2021, and modern disputes over eligibility for public office.

Recent legal commentary and litigation have focused on whether Section 3 applies to presidents and presidential candidates, how it should be enforced, and whether states can remove candidates from ballots under its terms. In Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court held that states could not independently remove a presidential candidate from the ballot under Section 3, leaving major questions about enforcement and congressional authority.

Section 3 shows that the 14th Amendment was not only about individual rights but also about protecting constitutional democracy from those who had violated their oaths through rebellion or insurrection.

Equal Protection, Race, Gender, and Civil Rights

The Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection of the laws. It became one of the most important constitutional tools for challenging racial discrimination, segregation, voting restrictions, sex discrimination, and other unequal treatment by government.

Early equal protection cases included Strauder v. West Virginia, which held that excluding Black citizens from juries violated the 14th Amendment, and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, which struck down discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law. At the same time, the Court failed to fully enforce equality in cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

The modern civil rights era transformed equal protection doctrine. Brown v. Board of Education rejected school segregation and overturned the logic of Plessy. Other cases used the 14th Amendment to strike down bans on interracial marriage, poll taxes in state elections, racial zoning, racially restrictive housing enforcement, and discriminatory jury practices.

Equal protection also shaped cases involving gender, disability, sexuality, immigration status, education, voting, and affirmative action. Cases such as Reed v. Reed, Craig v. Boren, Romer v. Evans, Plyler v. Doe, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, and the affirmative-action cases involving Harvard, UNC, and earlier university admissions policies show the clause’s continuing influence and controversy.

Due Process, Incorporation, and Personal Liberty

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prevents states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Over time, it became a major source for applying the Bill of Rights to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Important incorporation cases include Gitlow v. New York, Near v. Minnesota, Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Duncan v. Louisiana, and McDonald v. Chicago. These decisions applied major protections involving speech, press, search and seizure, counsel, criminal procedure, jury trials, and gun rights against state governments.

The Due Process Clause also became central to substantive liberty claims. Cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges involved privacy, family, education, procreation, sexuality, reproductive rights, and marriage. Later decisions, especially Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, narrowed or reversed some earlier substantive due process protections.

The history of due process under the 14th Amendment reflects a continuing debate over how broadly courts should interpret constitutional liberty.

Corporate Personhood and Economic Rights

Although the 14th Amendment was adopted to protect formerly enslaved people and secure civil rights after the Civil War, corporations later used the amendment to claim constitutional protections as “persons.” Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad became associated with the rise of corporate constitutional claims under the 14th Amendment.

Economic rights cases also shaped the amendment’s history. During the Lochner era, the Supreme Court used substantive due process to protect “liberty of contract” and strike down some economic regulations. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish marked a shift away from that approach, allowing greater government regulation of labor and economic conditions.

This history shows how the meaning of the 14th Amendment expanded beyond Reconstruction civil rights into corporate power, property rights, labor regulation, and economic constitutional law.

Congressional Enforcement and Reconstruction Civil Rights

Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment through appropriate legislation. This enforcement authority helped support Reconstruction civil rights laws and later civil rights protections.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 helped lay the groundwork for the amendment by declaring national citizenship and equal civil rights after slavery. However, the Supreme Court often limited federal enforcement during the late 19th century. United States v. Cruikshank and The Civil Rights Cases weakened federal power to prosecute private racial violence and discrimination, narrowing the reach of Reconstruction civil rights enforcement.

Later cases continued to define the scope of Congress’s Section 5 authority. City of Boerne v. Flores, United States v. Morrison, and Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett limited Congress’s ability to redefine constitutional rights or regulate private conduct without sufficient state action. These decisions show the ongoing tension between congressional power, state sovereignty, and constitutional rights enforcement.

Conclusion

The 14th Amendment is one of the most important provisions in the U.S. Constitution. Born out of the Civil War and Reconstruction, it created national birthright citizenship, overturned the citizenship denial of Dred Scott, and promised due process and equal protection against state abuses.

Its influence reaches across nearly every major area of constitutional law, including racial equality, gender discrimination, voting rights, school desegregation, criminal procedure, privacy, marriage, immigration, corporate rights, congressional enforcement, and democratic disqualification for insurrection. The amendment remains both a foundation of American civil rights and a continuing battleground over the meaning of citizenship, equality, liberty, and constitutional democracy.

Citizenship and Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

Article link | Samuel Breidbart and Maryjane Johnson | Brennan Center for Justice | Updated February 23, 2026

Explains how the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to people born on U.S. soil, and connects that history to modern debates over immigration and constitutional meaning.

A Brief History of Citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Article link | UC Davis Letters and Science | UC Davis | February 13, 2025

Reviews the origins of birthright citizenship, the overturning of Dred Scott, and the importance of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in defining citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Presidents Can't End Birthright Citizenship

Article link | Brennan Center for Justice | Brennan Center for Justice | January 20, 2025

Argues that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment cannot be overridden by executive action, emphasizing the amendment’s post-Civil War purpose of creating a national guarantee of citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 28, 1898

Summarizes the landmark birthright citizenship case holding that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Elk v. Wilkins

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | November 3, 1884

Covers the Supreme Court decision denying automatic 14th Amendment citizenship to a Native man who had left his tribe, later superseded by the Indian Citizenship Act.

14th Amendment: Citizenship Rights, Equal Protection, Apportionment, Civil War Debt

Article link | National Constitution Center | National Constitution Center | July 9, 1868

Provides a clause-by-clause overview of the amendment’s text and meaning, including citizenship, civil rights, representation, disqualification, Confederate debt, and enforcement.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 6, 1857

Covers the Supreme Court decision denying citizenship to Black Americans, the ruling the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was designed to overturn.

Origins, Text, and Reconstruction History

The Originalist Fiction of a Race-Neutral Constitution Is Damaging Civil Rights Law

Article link | Brennan Center for Justice | Brennan Center for Justice | August 22, 2024

Discusses how Reconstruction-era lawmakers understood equal protection as a tool for protecting Black citizenship and civil rights, challenging later claims that the 14th Amendment required absolute race-neutrality.

On This Day, Congress Approved the 14th Amendment

Article link | NCC Staff | National Constitution Center | June 13, 2024

Summarizes the congressional approval of the 14th Amendment on June 13, 1866, and explains how it became a cornerstone of citizenship, due process, and equal protection after ratification.

10 Supreme Court Cases About the 14th Amendment

Article link | NCC Staff | National Constitution Center | July 9, 2020

Lists major Supreme Court decisions that shaped citizenship, civil rights, due process, equal protection, segregation, privacy, and incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection

Article link | American Bar Association | ABA | September 9, 2019

Provides a teaching resource on the Equal Protection Clause, helping explain how the 14th Amendment requires government to justify unequal treatment under law.

Law Day Theme Is the 14th Amendment

Article link | American Bar Association | ABA | May 31, 2017

Highlights the 14th Amendment’s central role in U.S. citizenship, due process, equal protection, civil rights, and later constitutional struggles.

Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment

Article link | United States Senate | Senate Historical Office | July 9, 1868

Explains the Senate’s role in passing the 14th Amendment and summarizes its guarantees of national citizenship, due process, and equal protection.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights, 1868

Article link | National Archives | National Archives | July 9, 1868

Provides the text and historical background of the 14th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868 to protect citizenship and civil rights after slavery.

Fourteenth Amendment

Article link | Library of Congress | Constitution Annotated | July 9, 1868

Provides the full text and constitutional annotations for all five sections of the 14th Amendment, including citizenship, representation, disqualification, debt, and enforcement.

The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1

Article link | Library of Congress | Constitution Annotated | July 9, 1868

Explains Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, including citizenship, privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection.

The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause

Article link | National Constitution Center | National Constitution Center | July 9, 1868

Explains how the Due Process Clause became a major source for incorporation of the Bill of Rights and later substantive liberty claims.

Interpretation: The Equal Protection Clause

Article link | National Constitution Center | National Constitution Center | July 9, 1868

Reviews the origin and broad later meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, from Reconstruction’s protection of Black citizens to later civil rights law.

Bradwell v. Illinois

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | April 15, 1873

Explains an early 14th Amendment case rejecting a woman’s claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected her right to practice law.

Section 3, Insurrection, and Disqualification

What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case

Article link | Lawfare | Lawfare | March 8, 2024

Analyzes the Supreme Court’s Trump v. Anderson decision and argues that the Court narrowed Section 3 of the 14th Amendment by requiring congressional enforcement before disqualification.

Section 3 Disqualification Answers—and Many More Questions

Article link | Scott R. Anderson | Lawfare | March 4, 2024

Explains what the Supreme Court resolved and left unresolved about Section 3, the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause for oath-breaking insurrectionists.

Trump v. Anderson

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 4, 2024

Covers the Supreme Court case holding that states could not independently remove a presidential candidate from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

For Whatever Reason: Will the Colorado Supreme Court Apply the Constitutional Insurrectionist Bar to Presidents?

Article link | Roger Parloff | Lawfare | December 6, 2023

Examines the historical and textual dispute over whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to presidents and presidential candidates.

Treason, Insurrection, and Disqualification: From the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to Jan. 6, 2021

Article link | Mark A. Graber | Lawfare | September 26, 2022

Places Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in a long history of treason, rebellion, slavery, and constitutional disqualification.

After the Cawthorn Ruling, Can Trump Be Saved From Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

Article link | Roger Parloff | Lawfare | June 7, 2022

Discusses modern litigation over Section 3 disqualification and how Reconstruction-era amnesty debates might affect later candidates accused of insurrection.

Disqualifying Insurrectionists and Rebels: A How-To Guide

Article link | Gerard N. Magliocca | Lawfare | January 19, 2021

Explains how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent former rebels from returning to public office after the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment's Disqualification Provision and the Events of Jan. 6

Article link | Gerard N. Magliocca | Lawfare | January 19, 2021

Connects the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 disqualification language to modern questions about insurrection and eligibility for public office.

The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 3

Article link | Library of Congress | Constitution Annotated | July 9, 1868

Explains the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause for former oath-holders who engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Equal Protection, Race, Gender, and Civil Rights

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 29, 2023

Summarizes the Supreme Court’s decision restricting race-conscious college admissions under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 29, 2023

Covers the companion affirmative-action case applying the 14th Amendment’s equal protection rules to public university admissions.

The Equal Rights Amendment, Explained

Article link | Brennan Center for Justice | Brennan Center for Justice | January 23, 2020

Explains the Equal Rights Amendment while also discussing how the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause became an important source of sex-discrimination doctrine.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 28, 2007

Summarizes a major school desegregation and race-conscious assignment case under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Grutter v. Bollinger

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 23, 2003

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision upholding limited race-conscious admissions under the Equal Protection Clause before later cases narrowed that doctrine.

Gratz v. Bollinger

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 23, 2003

Explains the companion affirmative-action case in which the Court rejected a point-based racial preference system under the 14th Amendment.

Bush v. Gore

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | December 12, 2000

Covers the Supreme Court decision using the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in the Florida presidential recount dispute.

Romer v. Evans

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 20, 1996

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision striking down a Colorado amendment targeting gay and lesbian people under the Equal Protection Clause.

Adarand Constructors v. Peña

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 12, 1995

Explains how equal protection principles associated with the 14th Amendment were applied to federal affirmative-action programs through the Fifth Amendment.

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | January 23, 1989

Covers a major equal protection case limiting local affirmative-action contracting programs under strict scrutiny.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | July 1, 1985

Explains an Equal Protection Clause case involving disability discrimination and rational-basis review with closer scrutiny of prejudice.

Plyler v. Doe

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 15, 1982

Covers the Supreme Court decision holding that states cannot deny public education to children based on undocumented immigration status under the 14th Amendment.

Craig v. Boren

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | December 20, 1976

Summarizes the case establishing intermediate scrutiny for sex-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

Frontiero v. Richardson

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 14, 1973

Covers an early sex-discrimination case applying equal protection principles to federal benefits rules.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 21, 1973

Explains the Supreme Court decision holding that education is not a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment and upholding school funding based on local property taxes.

Reed v. Reed

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | November 22, 1971

Covers the first Supreme Court case to strike down a sex-based classification under the Equal Protection Clause.

Loving v. Virginia

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 12, 1967

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision striking down bans on interracial marriage under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 24, 1966

Explains the Supreme Court decision striking down poll taxes in state elections under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Baker v. Carr

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 26, 1962

Covers the reapportionment case that opened the door to federal equal protection challenges against malapportioned state legislative districts.

Bolling v. Sharpe

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 17, 1954

Summarizes the companion school desegregation case applying equal protection-like principles to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 17, 1954

Covers the landmark decision holding that racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Shelley v. Kraemer

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 3, 1948

Explains how judicial enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants counted as state action under the 14th Amendment.

Korematsu v. United States

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | December 18, 1944

Covers the wartime Japanese American incarceration case and its later significance for equal protection, race, and constitutional scrutiny.

Buchanan v. Warley

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | November 5, 1917

Covers a Supreme Court decision striking down racial residential zoning under the 14th Amendment.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 18, 1896

Covers the Supreme Court decision upholding racial segregation under “separate but equal,” a major failure of 14th Amendment equal protection later overturned by Brown.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 10, 1886

Summarizes a major equal protection case holding that discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violated the 14th Amendment.

Strauder v. West Virginia

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 1, 1880

Summarizes the decision holding that excluding Black citizens from juries violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Due Process, Incorporation, and Personal Liberty

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 24, 2022

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and rejecting a 14th Amendment substantive due process right to abortion.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 26, 2015

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision holding that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect the right of same-sex couples to marry.

McDonald v. Chicago

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 28, 2010

Covers the Supreme Court decision applying the Second Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Lawrence v. Texas

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 26, 2003

Covers the Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy laws under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and expanding constitutional protection for private liberty.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 29, 1992

Summarizes the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation and modification of Roe under the 14th Amendment’s substantive due process doctrine.

Bowers v. Hardwick

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 30, 1986

Summarizes the Supreme Court’s earlier rejection of a 14th Amendment privacy claim in same-sex intimacy cases, later overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.

Roe v. Wade

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | January 22, 1973

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision that recognized abortion access as part of 14th Amendment liberty before being overturned by Dobbs.

Duncan v. Louisiana

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 20, 1968

Explains how the right to jury trial in serious criminal cases was incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 13, 1966

Covers a landmark criminal procedure case tied to due process and the incorporation of constitutional protections against state police practices.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 18, 1963

Summarizes the case incorporating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the states through the 14th Amendment.

Mapp v. Ohio

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 19, 1961

Explains the case applying the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Skinner v. Oklahoma

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 1, 1942

Summarizes the Supreme Court decision striking down forced sterilization for certain crimes and recognizing procreation as a fundamental liberty interest.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 29, 1937

Explains the decline of Lochner-era substantive due process and the Court’s greater acceptance of economic regulation under the 14th Amendment.

Powell v. Alabama

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | November 7, 1932

Covers the Scottsboro Boys case and the 14th Amendment due process requirement of counsel in capital cases.

Near v. Minnesota

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 1, 1931

Summarizes an incorporation case applying First Amendment press protections to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 8, 1925

Explains one of the first major cases using the 14th Amendment to apply First Amendment free speech protections against state governments.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 1, 1925

Covers the due process case protecting parental and private-school liberty against state efforts to require public schooling only.

Meyer v. Nebraska

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 4, 1923

Summarizes a 14th Amendment substantive due process case protecting language education and parental liberty.

Lochner v. New York

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | April 17, 1905

Explains the famous substantive due process case using the 14th Amendment to protect “liberty of contract,” later heavily criticized.

The Slaughter-House Cases

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | April 14, 1873

Covers the first major Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which narrowly read the Privileges or Immunities Clause and shaped later constitutional law.

Corporate Personhood and Economic Rights

The History of Corporate Personhood

Article link | Brennan Center for Justice | Brennan Center for Justice | April 8, 2014

Traces how the 14th Amendment, originally adopted to protect formerly enslaved people, was later used by corporations claiming constitutional protections.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 10, 1886

Explains a case associated with the rise of corporate claims under the 14th Amendment’s protections for “persons.”

Congressional Enforcement and Reconstruction Civil Rights

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | February 21, 2001

Discusses limits on Congress’s Section 5 enforcement power under the 14th Amendment in disability-rights litigation against states.

United States v. Morrison

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | May 15, 2000

Summarizes a case limiting Congress’s power to enforce the 14th Amendment against private violence when state action is not sufficiently shown.

City of Boerne v. Flores

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | June 25, 1997

Covers a major ruling on Congress’s Section 5 power, holding that enforcement laws under the 14th Amendment must be remedial rather than redefining constitutional rights.

The Civil Rights Cases

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | October 15, 1883

Explains the Supreme Court decision limiting Congress’s ability to use the 14th Amendment against private discrimination, weakening Reconstruction civil rights enforcement.

United States v. Cruikshank

Article link | Oyez | Oyez | March 27, 1876

Covers a major Reconstruction-era case that sharply limited federal civil rights prosecutions after the Colfax Massacre.

The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 5

Article link | Library of Congress | Constitution Annotated | July 9, 1868

Reviews Congress’s enforcement power under Section 5 and how it became central to later civil rights legislation and constitutional litigation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

Article link | United States Senate | Senate Historical Office | April 9, 1866

Explains the law that declared national citizenship and equal civil rights after slavery, helping lay the groundwork for the 14th Amendment.