By Jeremy Nelson
In the past few years, you might have noticed the 14th Amendment mentioned a lot in the news. People are trying to figure out what it says and how it should be applied to current events. In this article, we're going to break down each part of this amendment, explain what it means, and explore the history behind it. Our purpose is to understand why it was added as an amendment to the Constitution and how it applies to us today. You will notice that each provision is quoted and discussed separately.
This is done to identify the significance and relevance of each provision independently of the others. Let’s begin.
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.
This provision gives persons born in the United States the right to citizenship in both the United States and the state where they live, provided they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
But what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This question has been debated throughout our history, particularly when it comes to children born to parents who are not American citizens.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents who were residing here, but were not American citizens, was a citizen by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
More recently, in Trump v. Barbara (2026), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the general rule of birthright citizenship, holding that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth. There remain narrow exceptions, including children born to accredited foreign diplomats.
This provision also recognizes that persons who move to the United States may become citizens through a process of naturalization.
It is interesting that despite this amendment, many American Indians living within tribal communities were not considered citizens under the general rule of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress had granted citizenship to certain Native Americans through earlier laws, but it was not until 1924 that Congress extended citizenship to all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States.
This amendment was introduced despite the Thirteenth Amendment's clear directive to abolish slavery. Nonetheless, there continued to be many instances of abuse and denial of rights to former slaves.
After the Civil War, several Southern states adopted laws that severely restricted the freedom of formerly enslaved people. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court described restrictions involving employment, land ownership, and the ability to testify in court. These laws demonstrated that abolishing slavery did not, by itself, ensure that formerly enslaved people would enjoy the rights of citizenship.
This was done, in part, on the assumption that while the federal government could abolish slavery, the states retained broad authority to regulate the affairs of individuals. The first part of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to establish citizenship for former slaves and protect their rights against certain actions by the states.
It's crucial to understand that the Fourteenth Amendment represented a significant change in the relationship between the states and the National Government. Under the original Constitution, the states retained broad authority over the civil affairs of their citizens, and many Americans were wary of expanding federal power over state governments.
The Bill of Rights highlights areas where the National Government shouldn't interfere, and initially, these amendments were not understood by the Supreme Court to apply to the states.
However, with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states found themselves bound by additional constitutional restrictions. Over time, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment as applying most protections in the Bill of Rights to state governments. It marked a significant shift in how the states were expected to protect the rights of individuals, including formerly enslaved Americans.
Primary sources: Fourteenth Amendment; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Trump v. Barbara (2026); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
In simpler terms, this provision prohibits the states from interfering with the privileges or immunities that belong to citizens of the United States. It's like saying, "Hey, if you're a citizen of the United States, your state cannot take away the rights that come with that national citizenship."
Interestingly, this idea has some similarities to an earlier provision. Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution already declared that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
However, these two provisions are not exactly the same.
Article IV addresses the treatment of citizens when they are in other states, while the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of national citizenship against interference by state governments.
In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court interpreted this protection narrowly, distinguishing rights associated with United States citizenship from rights traditionally protected under state law. This interpretation has played an important role in how the amendment has been applied ever since.
So, in essence, this part of the Fourteenth Amendment serves as another constitutional protection for the rights that come with American citizenship. It reminds us that state governments, as well as the National Government, must operate within the limits established by the Constitution.
Primary sources: Constitution, Article IV, Section 2; Slaughter-House Cases (1873).
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
In straightforward terms, this provision ensures that every person within a state's jurisdiction, not just citizens, has the right to protection of their life, liberty, and property. Importantly, these fundamental interests cannot be taken away without due process of law.
This guarantee might sound familiar because it echoes what the Fifth Amendment already stated: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment essentially reinforces this principle and extends its application to the states.
Now, what exactly is "due process"? It means that the government must follow constitutionally sufficient procedures when depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. However, due process doesn't always require a jury or a formal trial. The procedures required depend on the circumstances and the nature of the rights or interests involved.
Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as making most protections in the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments. This process is called incorporation.
Courts have also developed the separate doctrine of substantive due process, rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Substantive due process is a legal concept holding that certain fundamental rights may be protected against government interference even when the government follows the proper legal procedures.
When we talk about substantive due process, we mean that some government actions may violate the Constitution even when all the right procedural steps have been followed. Courts have sometimes used this principle to protect fundamental rights, although the proper scope of substantive due process remains an important subject of constitutional debate.
This part of the Fourteenth Amendment acts like a shield, protecting persons within a state's jurisdiction—regardless of citizenship status—from deprivations of life, liberty, or property that violate the Constitution.
Primary sources: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This provision declares that every person, regardless of citizenship, within a state's jurisdiction has the right to equal protection under the laws.
Let's unpack this a bit more. Just because everyone is to be treated fairly doesn't mean that everyone gets a free pass if they break the law. What it does mean is that the law must provide equal protection and that state governments cannot engage in forms of discrimination prohibited by the Constitution.
This provision also acts as a guard against laws that unjustifiably target specific groups or classes.
However, not every distinction made by government violates equal protection. Courts have developed different constitutional standards for evaluating different kinds of classifications.
For example, literacy tests were once used as qualifications for voting, but federal law now prohibits requiring voters to demonstrate reading, writing, or similar abilities as a condition of voting. This prohibition was established through federal voting-rights legislation, illustrating how constitutional protections and legislation can work together to protect individual rights.
In essence, this part of the Fourteenth Amendment is like a beacon of fairness, striving for the ideal that the laws should provide equal protection to everyone within a state's jurisdiction. It's a key ingredient in the recipe for a just and equitable society.
Primary sources: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1; 52 U.S.C. § 10501.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state
This provision establishes that representation in the House of Representatives is based on the number of persons in each state, rather than simply the number of citizens or eligible voters.
Historically speaking, this provision addresses an important change.
Under the original Constitution, three-fifths of the enslaved population was counted when determining representation in the House and apportioning direct taxes. It's crucial to understand that this was not a provision granting enslaved people three-fifths of a vote. Enslaved people were generally denied the right to vote.
The South wanted to include all enslaved people when calculating the population for determining the number of representatives in the House. However, counting that population also affected the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.
The compromise reached at the Constitutional Convention was that three-fifths of the enslaved population would be counted for both representation and direct taxation.
The Fourteenth Amendment stepped in to eliminate this formula. Representation in Congress would now be determined by the whole number of persons in each state, subject to the amendment's original exception for Indians not taxed.
It reflected a significant change in the constitutional rules for representation following the abolition of slavery.
Primary sources: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers...excluding Indians not taxed
This provision reflected a constitutional distinction that existed at the time between Native Americans who were considered part of separate tribal political communities and those counted within the general population for purposes of representation.
Historically, the United States government treated Native American tribes as distinct political communities, entering into treaties with them and recognizing their separate governmental relationships.
The phrase "Indians not taxed" did not simply mean that a Native American was excluded from representation because he or she did not pay taxes or participate in elections. Rather, it was associated with the political relationship between tribal communities and the United States.
Over time, Congress passed laws extending citizenship to various groups of Native Americans.
In 1924, Congress extended United States citizenship to all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States. Importantly, the law preserved their rights to tribal or other property. Citizenship and membership in a tribal community were not mutually exclusive.
This marked a significant change in federal citizenship law. However, becoming a United States citizen did not automatically remove every barrier to voting that Native Americans encountered under state election laws.
Primary sources: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2; Indian Citizenship Act, 43 Stat. 253 (1924).
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
This provision can be a bit confusing at first glance, so let's break it down.
It established a penalty for states that denied or abridged the voting rights of certain male citizens who were at least twenty-one years old, except for participation in rebellion or other crime.
The penalty involved reducing the state's representation in Congress according to the proportion of the specified citizens whose voting rights were denied or abridged.
Historically, this penalty clause was designed in part to discourage states from preventing formerly enslaved men from voting. It also addressed a difficult political question following the Civil War: how to prevent states from gaining additional representation based on formerly enslaved people while denying those citizens the right to vote.
Although Congress made no serious effort to put this representation penalty into practice, the provision reveals an important concern during Reconstruction.
The provision was written at a time when voting qualifications were different from those we recognize today. Later constitutional amendments prohibited denying the right to vote on account of race or sex, prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, and protected the voting rights of citizens eighteen years of age or older against age-based denial or abridgment.
Nonetheless, this provision signifies an important statement within the amendment regarding the relationship between representation and the right to vote, particularly in the context of post-Civil War efforts to secure the rights of former slaves.
Primary sources: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2; Saunders v. Wilkins, 152 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1945); Constitution Annotated — historical enforcement discussion.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.
This provision disqualifies certain individuals from holding federal or state office if they previously took an oath to support the Constitution and later participated in an insurrection or rebellion against it, or gave aid or comfort to its enemies.
It also gives Congress the power to remove such a disqualification through a two-thirds vote of each house.
After close examination of this provision, it becomes apparent that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the leadership in Congress at the time, approached the question of postwar reconciliation differently from figures such as Lincoln or General Grant at the end of the Civil War.
The provision sought to exclude from public office certain individuals who had previously sworn to support the Constitution and then participated in the Confederate rebellion.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, and by Christmas Day of that year, President Andrew Johnson had issued a proclamation granting full pardon and amnesty for offenses arising from the rebellion. Johnson's proclamation expressed the belief that restoring peace and reconciliation would benefit the country.
However, presidential pardons and the removal of constitutional disqualifications under Section 3 are separate legal questions. The amendment expressly gives Congress the power to remove these disabilities through a two-thirds vote of each house.
This provision has also received renewed attention in recent years.
In Trump v. Anderson (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that individual states cannot independently enforce Section 3 to disqualify candidates for federal office. The decision clarified an important limitation on state authority under the amendment and recognized Congress's responsibility for enforcement against federal officeholders and candidates.
Primary sources: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3; Andrew Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation, December 25, 1868; Trump v. Anderson (2024).
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
This provision protects the validity of the public debt of the United States that has been authorized by law, including debts incurred in suppressing insurrection or rebellion and providing pensions and bounties for those who served.
In essence, this part of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to assure that the lawful financial obligations of the United States would remain valid despite the political and financial upheaval following the Civil War.
The provision establishes a constitutional protection for authorized public debt. However, it does not mean that every disputed financial claim against the federal government must automatically be paid without determining whether that claim is lawful.
Primary source: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.
But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States
This provision prohibits the United States and individual states from assuming or paying debts or obligations incurred in support of rebellion against the United States.
Essentially, this section prevented Confederate war debts from becoming obligations that the United States or its states could assume or pay.
Individuals who had lent money to the Confederacy could not require the federal or state governments to honor those obligations.
This measure had significant financial consequences for the former Confederate states and those who had supported their war effort.
It was one of the financial consequences of the Civil War established by the Fourteenth Amendment, making clear that the lawful debts of the United States would be protected while debts incurred in support of rebellion would not be assumed or paid by federal or state governments.
Primary source: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.
or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.
This provision prohibits the United States and individual states from paying claims made by slave owners asserting that they suffered financial losses due to the emancipation of enslaved people. The Constitution expressly declares such claims illegal and void.
This provision prevents former slave owners from requiring federal or state compensation for the loss of what they had previously claimed as property. It effectively closes the door to using the government to obtain compensation for emancipation.
Before the Fourteenth Amendment, compensated emancipation had been proposed and, in some circumstances, enacted.
For example, Congress passed the District of Columbia Emancipation Act in 1862, providing compensation to qualifying former slaveholders.
However, following the Civil War, Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly declared claims for compensation arising from the loss or emancipation of enslaved people illegal and void.
This ensured that neither the United States nor the states would be required to compensate former slaveholders for emancipation.
Primary sources: District of Columbia Emancipation Act, April 16, 1862; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This provision gives Congress the power to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the protections established by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It provides an important means of carrying the amendment's guarantees into effect while remaining subject to the Constitution's limits on federal legislative authority.
In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment serves as a vital safeguard for constitutional rights, notwithstanding the controversies surrounding its adoption and interpretation.
Shaped by the tumultuous events of its time, it remains a significant influence on contemporary legislation and constitutional dialogue.
The promises reinforced in this amendment stand as a testament to the continuing importance of equality before the law and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution.
Primary source: Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5.
Editor's Note (October 2026): This article has been updated to clarify historical and constitutional interpretations, incorporate subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and provide additional references to original sources.