Civil and Human Rights

A constitutional amendment passed after the Civil War is behind the battle

By German Lopez

 

Since the 14th Amendment was established in the aftermath of the Civil War, it’s widely misperceived to only protect racial minorities. But constitutional scholars argue that the amendment was purposely broad to protect anyone from discrimination — even groups of people that the amendment’s authors couldn’t possibly predict would face discrimination or one day be accepted by society.

 

The 14th Amendment “was designed to, really, perfect the promise of the Declaration of Independence,” Judith Schaeffer, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said. “The purpose and the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to make clear that no state can take no group of citizens and make them second-class.”

 

Schaeffer, who has studied the history of the 14th Amendment, said it was purposely written in a broad manner to cover groups of people that go beyond race. “The authors of the 14th Amendment rejected drafts and proposals that would have limited the 14th Amendment just to racial discrimination,” she said. “Instead, they put in language that protects any person — not just on the basis of race, but any person.”

 

The amendment accomplishes this by requiring states to enforce their laws equally among all groups. So, in the case of same-sex marriage, states’ bans likely violate the 14th Amendment because they purposely exclude gay and lesbian couples from marriage laws.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2025

CAC Release: Purporting to Effectuate “Pure Textualism,” Supreme Court Guts ADA’s Protections for Retirees, Neglecting Critical Statutory Context and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Stanley v. City of...
Civil and Human Rights
June 18, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Allows Tennessee to Flout Constitution’s Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti,...
Civil and Human Rights
July 7, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.