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
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 is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 18, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.