Judicial Interpretation of the Fourteenth Ammendment

Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part that:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

History

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War. It was created primarily to ensure that the rights of former slaves (freed by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865) would be protected throughout the nation. The need for the Amendment was great because up to this time, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments. This was due to the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1835). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only enforceable against the federal government (and not against state governments) due to the federal structure of the nation. Therefore, without a Constitutional Amendment justifying federal intervention in the affairs of the states, states hostile to the interests of the newly freed slaves might still legally discriminate against or persecute them.

While some of the Amendment's supporters felt that the Amendment would incorporate all of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states, this was not to be. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1875), the view of these supporters was rejected and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "privilege and immunities" clause did not automatically incorporate (apply) all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. Over time though, the Court began to use the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to achieve the same end. The following is a list of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights which have thus far been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court to the states through the "due process" clause.

Year Amendment Incorporated Constitutional Provision Supreme Court Case

1897 Fifth Just compensation clause Chicago, Burlington, Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago

1925 First Freedom of speech Gitlow v. New York

1931 First Freedom of the press Near v. Minnesota

1932 Sixth Right to counsel (in capital cases) Powell v. Alabama

1937 First Freedom of assembly/petition DeJonge v. Oregon

1940 First Free exercise clause Cantwell v. Connecticut

1947 First Establishment clause Everson v. Board of Education

1948 Sixth Right to a public trial In re Oliver

1949 Fourth Protection against unreasonable search and seizure Wolf v. Colorado

1962 Eighth Prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments Robinson v. California

1963 Sixth Right to counsel (non-capital felonies) Gideon v. Wainwright

1964 Fifth Right against self-incrimination Malloy v. Hogan

1965 Sixth Right to confront adverse witnesses Pointer v. Texas

1966 Sixth Right to an impartial jury Parker v. Gladden

1967 Sixth Right to a speedy trial Klopfer v. North Carolina

1967 Sixth Right to obtain favorable witnesses Washington v. Texas

1968 Sixth Right to a trial by jury in non-petty criminal cases Duncan v. Louisiana

1969 Fifth Prohibition of double jeopardy Benton v. Maryland

1972 Sixth Right to counsel in imprisonable non-felony cases Argersinger v. Hamlin

It is important to note, however, that not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states. In fact, in some cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly refused to do so. For example, in Hurtado v. California (1884) the Court refused to incorporate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury requirement to the states.

Note: The format of this chart is the same as the one appearing on page 215 of the book The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide by Linda R Monk.

Monk, Linda R. The Bill of Rights: A User's Guide Second Edition. Close Up Foundation. 1995

Interactions Between the State and Federal Systems

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the federal courts to become involved in state cases if one of the rights protected (meaning incorporated) by the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play. The Fourteenth Amendment offers significant protection for personal liberties in that it opens the federal courts to those who are unsatisfied with the decisions of state courts when an incorporated (applicable) federal Constitutional provision is called into question.

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to sue in federal court if they believe that a state law or regulation deprives them of the "equal protection of the laws." The famous case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of a situation where the "equal protection" clause was used in such a manner. This case struck down segregation in public schools, citing the practice as a violation of the federal "equal protection" clause. However, the states are free to do more than the minimum required by the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Constitution. For example, in the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the unequal quality of school districts in rich and poor communities in Texas did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause. The Court said that the funding scheme was not " ... so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory." It went on to conclude that, "The Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages."

However, in the case of Edgewood v. Kirby (1989) the Texas Supreme Court found that the unequal quality of the state's school districts did violate the Texas Constitution. "We hold that the state's school financing system is neither financially efficient nor efficient in the sense of providing for a 'general diffusion of knowledge' statewide, and therefore it violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution," the Court said. Article VII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution states: "A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of the state to establish and make suitable provisions for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of free public schools."