Fourteenth Amendment

Adopted to override the Supreme Court

• Dred Scott v. John F a Sandford (1856)

  Nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), abolishing slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), establishing birthright citizenship — directly overriding Dred Scott’s holdings that enslaved people and their descendants could not be citizens.

• Brown v. Board of Education · 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if the segregated facilities are equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which had ruled that racial segregation laws were constitutional as long as the facilities for each race were equal, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal".

• Roe v. Wade · 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected the right of pregnant women to choose to have an abortion before the point of fetal viability. The decision struck down many state abortion laws, and it sparked an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be.

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization · 597 U.S. 215 (2022)

  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that the United States Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), devolving to state governments the authority to regulate any aspect of abortion that federal law does not preempt.

• Bush v. Gore · 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

  Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed.

• Obergefell v. Hodges · 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

  Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ( OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas under U.S. sovereignty to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and…

• Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard · 600 U.S. 181 (2023)

  Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), both of which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.

• Trump v. Anderson · 601 U.S. 100 (2024)

  Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court had rejected then-former president Donald Trump's presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory.

• Shelley v. Kraemer · 334 U.S. 1 (1948)

  Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants (deed restrictions) cannot legally be enforced. The case arose after an African-American family purchased a house in St. Louis that was subject to a restrictive covenant preventing "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.

• Loving v. Virginia · 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Richard Loving, a white man, and his wife Mildred Loving, a woman of color.

• Dred Scott v. Sandford · 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens.

• McDonald v. City of Chicago · 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

  McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark · 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

  United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China" became "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the…

• Elk v. Wilkins · 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

  Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that Native Americans born on Indian reservations were not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. John Elk, a Winnebago Native American, was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial bounds of United States.

• Afroyim v. Rusk · 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

  Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.

• Vance v. Terrazas · 444 U.S. 252 (1980)

  Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established that a United States citizen cannot have their citizenship taken away unless they have acted with an intent to give up that citizenship. The Supreme Court overturned portions of an act of Congress which had listed various actions and had said that the performance of any of these actions could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship.

• Rogers v. Bellei · 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

  Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

• Timbs v. Indiana · 586 U.S. 146 (2019)

  Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments. In February 2019, the Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Allgeyer v. Louisiana · 165 U.S. 578 (1897)

  Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which a unanimous bench struck down a Louisiana statute for violating an individual's liberty of contract. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean economic liberty.

• Lochner v. New York · 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

  Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision has since been effectively overturned.

• West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish · 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

  West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of state minimum wage legislation. The court's decision overturned an earlier holding in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) and is generally regarded as having ended the Lochner era, a period in American legal history during which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business.

• Meyer v. Nebraska · 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the "Siman Act", a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting minority languages as both the subject and medium of instruction in schools, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court's ruling is one of the earliest articulations of substantive due process.

• Pierce v. Society of Sisters · 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

  Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties.

• Griswold v. Connecticut · 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception".

• Lawrence v. Texas · 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

  Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the United States Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated.