The 14th Amendment: equal protection, due process and applying rights to the states
Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Building Confidence
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Use this
Card A. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (1868), Section 1 (National Archives transcript). Exact words: “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 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.”
A made-up state bars one person from its public library because of that person's religion. Ari reads Card A. Which words apply?
- “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, since a library card is a form of property
- “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
- “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, since library use is a privilege of citizens
- “born or naturalized in the United States”, since the person must first be a citizen of the state
Use this
Card A. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (1868), Section 1 (National Archives transcript). Exact words: “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 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.” Card E. Barron v. Baltimore (1833). John Barron, who owned a wharf, said the city of Baltimore had ruined it. Exact words from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion about the amendments: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”
Card A says “No State shall.” Card E says the first ten amendments did not apply to states in 1833. Kira asks what “No State” was meant to change.
- To limit state power, which the first ten amendments had not done in their words
- To repeal the Bill of Rights, since the amendment came after it and replaced its rules with new ones
- To give the national government control of schools, since schools are run by states
- To apply the Bill of Rights to states, as Card D shows the Court did right away in 1868
Use this
Card B. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, 7 to 1). A Louisiana law required separate railway cars for white and Black passengers. Exact words from Justice Brown's opinion for the Court: “The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.” Exact words from Justice Harlan's dissent: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Card C. Brown v. Board of Education (1954, 9 to 0). Exact words from Chief Justice Warren's opinion: “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Plessy (1896) allowed separate railway cars; Brown (1954) said separate public schools are inherently unequal. Luz reads Cards B and C. What do they show?
- The Court read equal protection differently in 1896 and 1954; Brown called separate schools unequal
- Plessy and Brown reached the same result on different reasoning, since both treated separation as lawful
- Brown was decided under a different amendment from Plessy, so the two rulings cannot be compared whatsoever
- Brown overruled Plessy for railway cars too, since the quoted words speak of the doctrine of separate but equal
Use this
Card B. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, 7 to 1). A Louisiana law required separate railway cars for white and Black passengers. Exact words from Justice Brown's opinion for the Court: “The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.” Exact words from Justice Harlan's dissent: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
Tala reads Justice Harlan's dissent in Card B: “Our constitution is color-blind.” What is his point against the majority?
- Courts must end each social custom about color, since the Constitution is color-blind
- Railroads are private companies and so outside the Constitution, since private acts are not covered
- Citizens should be treated as equals before the law whatever their color
- States may separate people if the separate places are equal, since a color-blind law can allow that
Use this
Card F. Goss v. Lopez (1975, 5 to 4). Ohio high school students were suspended for up to 10 days without a hearing. Exact words from the opinion: “Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.”
A made-up principal suspends a student for three days without telling the student the charge. Jun reads Card F. What does Goss require?
- A call to the parents, since the school must tell the family the suspension begins
- Notice of the charges and, if the student denies them, a chance to tell the student's side
- A full trial with a lawyer and a jury before any suspension, since due process means a trial
- A hearing after the suspension ends, since the opinion allows the hearing to come later
Use this
Card C. Brown v. Board of Education (1954, 9 to 0). Exact words from Chief Justice Warren's opinion: “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
“Brown ended school segregation the day it was decided,” says Noah. What does Card C show?
- That the Court held separate public schools unequal; it does not say how fast schools changed
- That schools across the country were integrated in 1954, since the Court ruled in that year
- That railroads were integrated too, since Card C speaks of separate but equal, the doctrine used on railroads
- Nothing, since a court holding is not a change in the law without a new act of Congress
Use this
Card F. Goss v. Lopez (1975, 5 to 4). Ohio high school students were suspended for up to 10 days without a hearing. Exact words from the opinion: “Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.”
“Goss means students can never be suspended,” says Esme. What does Card F show?
- That students may be suspended for any reason, since no reason is named in the quoted words
- Nothing about suspensions, since the case concerned just the students in Ohio and no one else
- That schools may suspend, but a suspension of 10 days or less needs notice and a chance to respond
- That a suspension needs a full trial, since Goss says due process protects students
Use this
Card D (summary in our words, not a quotation). The Bill of Rights first limited only the national government. Over the twentieth century the Court has applied most of its protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process words. This is called incorporation. Not every protection has been applied: the Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause has not. Card E. Barron v. Baltimore (1833). John Barron, who owned a wharf, said the city of Baltimore had ruined it. Exact words from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion about the amendments: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”
Card E: in 1833 the Bill of Rights did not limit states. Card D: later the Court applied most of it to states. Pia asks what made that change possible.
- A law of Congress that told the states to copy the Bill of Rights in their own constitutions
- A rewrite of the Bill of Rights in 1868 that added the words “No State” to each amendment
- The Fourteenth Amendment's due process words, read to cover Bill of Rights protections
- The Ninth Amendment, which says rights not listed are kept by the people, so states must respect them
Use this
Card G (summary in our words). Gitlow v. New York (1925): the Court treated freedom of speech as protected against the states. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): evidence from an unreasonable search cannot be used in a state trial. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): states must give a lawyer to a poor person charged with a serious crime. Duncan v. Louisiana (1968): the right to a jury in serious criminal cases applies to the states. Card D (summary in our words, not a quotation). The Bill of Rights first limited only the national government. Over the twentieth century the Court has applied most of its protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process words. This is called incorporation. Not every protection has been applied: the Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause has not.
Mapp is dated 1961. A state trial in 1958 and one in 1962 each use evidence from an unreasonable search (made up). Milo reads Cards G and D. What follows?
- Neither trial may use it, since the Fourth Amendment has bound the states since 1791
- The 1958 trial might use it; by 1962 Mapp bars it in a state court
- Both trials may use it, since states set their own rules for evidence
- The 1962 trial may use it and the 1958 trial may not, since later cases are looser
Use this
Card F. Goss v. Lopez (1975, 5 to 4). Ohio high school students were suspended for up to 10 days without a hearing. Exact words from the opinion: “Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” Card G (summary in our words). Gitlow v. New York (1925): the Court treated freedom of speech as protected against the states. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): evidence from an unreasonable search cannot be used in a state trial. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): states must give a lawyer to a poor person charged with a serious crime. Duncan v. Louisiana (1968): the right to a jury in serious criminal cases applies to the states.
“Due process always means a trial,” says Ren. What do Cards F and G show?
- Due process means nothing for a short suspension, since it lasts just a few days
- Due process means a lawyer for any student, since Gideon gave poor defendants a lawyer
- Due process is flexible: a short suspension needs notice and a chance to respond, not a trial
- Due process means a jury trial before any school discipline, since Duncan applied jury trials to states