AP Syllabus focus:
‘Although rights were curtailed, the 14th and 15th amendments later became a foundation for court decisions that upheld civil rights in the 20th century.’
The long-term legacy of the 14th and 15th Amendments rests in how their constitutional principles later empowered civil rights activism, judicial rulings, and federal enforcement aimed at expanding equality.
Foundations of the Reconstruction Amendments
The 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship, equal protection, and due process, while the 15th Amendment prohibited voting discrimination based on race. These Reconstruction measures were initially designed to solidify the citizenship and political rights of formerly enslaved people in the post–Civil War era.
Original manuscript of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, page 1, showing the text that establishes citizenship, due process, and equal protection. This document, ratified in 1868, later became the basis for major civil rights rulings challenging segregation and unequal treatment. The image includes the full section, not just the equal protection language, so students see more text than is emphasized in this subtopic. Source.
Equal Protection Clause: The portion of the 14th Amendment requiring states to provide all persons with the same protection under the law.
Despite severe retrenchment during the late 19th century, these amendments endured as constitutional anchors. Their language became the structural basis upon which future legal challenges to racial inequality were built, even as discriminatory state laws attempted to nullify their force.
Curtailment of Rights After Reconstruction
By the 1870s and 1880s, Southern states increasingly used poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and racial violence to undermine the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of Black voting rights. Judicial decisions in the same period narrowed the meanings of both Reconstruction amendments, allowing segregation and disfranchisement to expand.
Disfranchisement: The systematic removal or denial of voting rights from a group of people.
Supreme Court cases such as The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and United States v. Cruikshank (1876) limited federal power to intervene in state civil rights violations. This restrictive interpretive era contributed to the rise of Jim Crow systems, which persisted into the 20th century. Yet the amendments themselves remained embedded in the Constitution, preserving a legal foundation that later reformers could reactivate.
Reemergence of the Amendments in Early 20th-Century Civil Rights Efforts
By the early 1900s, civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, strategically invoked the 14th Amendment in court challenges against discriminatory laws. Even before the landmark school segregation cases, the amendment’s due process and equal protection provisions provided mechanisms to contest racial inequality.
These efforts established crucial precedents, showing that constitutional litigation could successfully constrain state power when rights were denied. Activists recognized the potential within the amendments’ broad language to redefine the meaning of citizenship in more inclusive terms.
Mid-20th-Century Judicial Transformation
The most significant resurgence of the amendments’ power occurred in the mid-20th century, when the Supreme Court increasingly relied on the 14th Amendment to strike down racial discrimination. Key decisions demonstrated how Reconstruction-era principles became the backbone of modern civil rights jurisprudence.
Landmark Uses of the 14th Amendment
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) invoked the Equal Protection Clause to rule that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) used equal protection to invalidate bans on interracial marriage.
Baker v. Carr (1962) applied the one person, one vote principle, extending equal protection to issues of political representation.
These cases illustrate how the amendment supported a reinterpretation of citizenship as encompassing full legal and civic equality. The broad constitutional language drafted in the 1860s thus shaped transformative mid-century reforms.
Revival of the 15th Amendment in Voting Rights Advances
The 15th Amendment resurfaced powerfully in the 20th century as civil rights activists targeted systemic suppression of Black voters.
Civil rights marchers carry large banners and signs demanding voting rights, symbolizing grassroots pressure to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination in voting. These demonstrations, including the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, helped lead to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which gave the federal government new tools to protect Black citizens’ access to the ballot. The photograph shows a broader scene of the civil rights movement, so it includes more context than is explicitly detailed in this subtopic, but all visible elements relate to voting-rights activism. Source.
Core Federal Interventions
Civil Rights Act of 1957 restored limited federal oversight of elections.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) provided robust enforcement tools, including preclearance of state election laws and bans on literacy tests.
Subsequent amendments to the VRA further strengthened federal authority to intervene when racial discrimination in voting was documented.
The 15th Amendment thus evolved from a largely dormant constitutional provision into a dynamic tool enabling more representative democracy.
Expanding Definitions of Citizenship and Rights
Through the 14th Amendment, courts also modernized understandings of personal liberty and state responsibility. The incorporation doctrine, which applies most provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, stems from the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This development broadened the amendment’s influence beyond racial issues and reshaped American constitutional law.
Moreover, its equal protection principles became central to cases involving gender equality, immigration, criminal procedure, and later LGBTQ rights. This demonstrates the amendment’s adaptive capacity in addressing evolving conceptions of citizenship.
Enduring Significance for Civil Rights
The long-term legacy of the 14th and 15th Amendments lies not only in the rights they originally sought to protect but in their continued capacity to empower federal action and judicial review. Although their promises were restricted for decades, their constitutional permanence enabled later generations to secure landmark victories for civil rights, fulfilling the foundational vision of equality embedded in Reconstruction.
FAQ
Courts in the late 19th century adopted narrow readings of the amendment, especially in the Slaughterhouse Cases and related rulings, which confined its protections mostly to federal—not state—actions.
This meant states retained broad authority to enforce segregation, restrict voting, and impose discriminatory laws with little federal oversight.
These early interpretations created a legal environment in which Jim Crow could flourish despite the amendment’s broad wording.
Both amendments use expansive, principle-based language—terms such as “equal protection” and prohibitions on voting discrimination—that do not specify implementation details.
Because of this, courts and legislators could reinterpret these clauses in later eras to address new forms of racial inequality.
This flexibility made them powerful tools for 20th-century civil rights litigation and federal enforcement.
Grassroots pressure highlighted the gap between constitutional guarantees and lived reality, prompting federal intervention.
Key strategies included:
Voter registration drives
Mass marches highlighting systemic exclusion
Legal challenges supported by civil rights organisations
These efforts demonstrated consistent barriers to Black political participation, strengthening the case for robust federal enforcement.
Its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses provided a basis for expanding civil liberties in areas unrelated to race.
For example:
Application of the Bill of Rights to state governments (incorporation)
Greater protection for privacy and personal autonomy
Enhanced scrutiny of gender-based discrimination
Though these developments extend beyond the subsubtopic’s racial focus, they demonstrate the amendment’s broad constitutional reach.
States developed sophisticated methods to bypass the amendment, such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and administrative obstacles that were racially neutral in wording but discriminatory in effect.
Federal legislation was necessary to:
Investigate and block discriminatory electoral rules
Oversee problematic jurisdictions
Enforce compliance through legal penalties
This legislative backing finally gave the amendment practical force after decades of evasion.
Practice Questions
Question 2 (4–6 marks)
Analyse how both the 14th and 15th Amendments shaped federal involvement in civil rights during the 20th century. In your answer, refer to specific developments or court decisions.
Question 2
4 marks for outlining contributions of both amendments, such as the 14th Amendment enabling judicial challenges to segregation and the 15th Amendment underpinning voting rights activism.
5 marks for linking these amendments to federal action, such as Supreme Court rulings, the Voting Rights Act, or increased oversight of elections.
6 marks for a well-developed analysis showing how constitutional language shaped long-term federal intervention, with clear reference to specific cases (e.g., Brown v. Board, Baker v. Carr) or legislation (e.g., Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Question 1 (1–3 marks)
Explain one way in which the 14th Amendment contributed to the expansion of civil rights in the 20th century.
Question 1
1 mark for a general statement recognising that the 14th Amendment provided constitutional grounds for later civil rights advances.
2 marks for identifying a specific mechanism, such as the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause, used to challenge discriminatory laws.
3 marks for explaining how this mechanism directly supported a key development, such as the Brown v. Board of Education ruling or the broader dismantling of segregation.
