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.
13 disputes
What was done: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160, which said children born in the United States to a mother who was in the country without legal permission, or only temporarily, and a father who was not a citizen or permanent resident, are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and so do not qualify for citizenship.
The claim: The plaintiffs argued the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that the Clause guarantees citizenship based on birth in the United States, not parental status. — Barbara et al. (parents, some suing for their children, and a class of children) (Parents and children covered by the Order) · source ↗
The response: The government argued the Citizenship Clause was adopted to give citizenship to freed slaves and their children, and covers only people completely subject to the nation's jurisdiction, not children of temporarily present or illegally present noncitizens. — The United States (Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for President Trump and federal officials) · source ↗
What the court decided · Supreme Court of the United States, June 30, 2026“Those children are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are "born . . . in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”
Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (2026) ↗
Where it stands: Argued April 1, 2026; decided June 30, 2026 (judgment of the District Court affirmed); judgment issued August 3, 2026.
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: In January 2024 Louisiana enacted a congressional map (SB8) with a second majority-Black district, after a federal judge in a Voting Rights Act case held that the state's 2022 map likely fell short of section 2 of that Act. Voters then challenged SB8 as a racial gerrymander.
The claim: The Callais voters argued SB8 was a racial gerrymander that triggers strict scrutiny, because, they said, Louisiana admitted it set two majority-Black districts as a baseline. — Phillip Callais et al. (appellees) (Louisiana voters who challenged the map) · source ↗
The response: The Robinson appellants argued SB8 reflected the legislature's political and policy goals and the aim of resolving the pending Voting Rights Act case, not race alone. Louisiana also appealed the three-judge court's ruling. — Press Robinson et al. (appellants in No. 24-110) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, April 29, 2026“The State's attempt to satisfy the Middle District's ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and we therefore affirm the decision below.”
Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109 (2026) ↗
Where it stands: Argued March 24, 2025 and reargued October 15, 2025; decided April 29, 2026 (judgment affirmed, case remanded); judgment issued May 4, 2026; motion to recall the judgment denied May 6, 2026.
Listed under: Amendment XIV, Section 1, Amendment XV, Section 1
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: After President Trump signed Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, three federal district courts issued 'universal' injunctions barring officials from applying it to anyone. The government asked the Supreme Court to narrow those injunctions to the plaintiffs.
The claim: The government argued that the district courts lacked the equitable authority to give relief beyond the plaintiffs, and asked for partial stays limiting the injunctions to the plaintiffs. — The United States (applicants: President Trump and federal officials) (Defendants in the three lower-court cases) · source ↗
The response: The plaintiffs argued there was no emergency to justify a stay and that a nationwide injunction was necessary to give them complete relief. — CASA, Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and individual parents (respondents) · source ↗
What the court decided · Supreme Court of the United States, June 27, 2025“These injunctions--known as "universal injunctions"--likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Trump v. CASA, Inc., Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886 (2025) ↗
Where it stands: June 27, 2025: stay applications granted. The Court did not decide whether the Executive Order itself is constitutional; that question was decided in Trump v. Barbara (separate entry).
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Harvard College and the University of North Carolina considered an applicant's race as one factor in admissions. Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit, sued both schools in November 2014.
The claim: SFFA argued that the race-based admissions programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Harvard) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (UNC). — Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) (Nonprofit organization suing on behalf of applicants and others) · source ↗
The response: The schools asserted educational interests in the makeup of their classes and argued that their frequent reviews of whether racial preferences are still needed made a fixed end point unnecessary; the lower courts found both programs permissible. — Harvard and the University of North Carolina (respondents) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, June 29, 2023“the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.”
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act (cited as a 2018 law), which bars most abortions once a pregnancy is past 15 weeks, with exceptions for a medical emergency or a severe fetal abnormality. A clinic and one of its doctors challenged it in federal court.
The claim: The clinic and its doctor challenged the Act in federal court, alleging that it violated the Court's earlier decisions recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. — Jackson Women's Health Organization and one of its doctors (respondents) (Abortion clinic and a physician) · source ↗
The response: The state officials defended the Act, arguing that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act meets the rational-basis standard. — Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, and other state officials (petitioners) · source ↗
What the court decided · Supreme Court of the United States, June 24, 2022“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and did not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Same-sex couples sued state officials in each state.
The claim: The petitioners claimed state officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry, or full recognition of marriages performed in another state. — 14 same-sex couples and two men whose partners had died (petitioners) (Couples and surviving partners in the four states) · source ↗
The response: The respondents said marriage is by its nature a union of man and woman, that extending it would demean a timeless institution, and that the question should await more democratic debate. — State officials responsible for enforcing the laws (respondents) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2015“The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in all Florida counties where 'undervotes' (ballots machines had not read as a vote for president) had not yet been counted by hand.
The claim: The petitioners raised an equal protection claim (or alternatively a due process claim), charging that different standards were applied in different counties to otherwise identical voters. — George W. Bush et al. (petitioners) (The Republican candidates for President and Vice President, certified as winners in Florida) · source ↗
The response: Respondents said the very purpose of protecting the right to vote justified the recount procedures the Florida court ordered. — Albert Gore, Jr., et al. (respondents) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, December 12, 2000“The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for nonarbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right.”
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Virginia had laws banning marriages between people of different races. Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, married in the District of Columbia in June 1958, returned to Virginia, and were prosecuted under those laws.
The claim: The Lovings appealed their Virginia convictions, asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the state's scheme barring marriages based on race fit the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. — Richard and Mildred Loving (Couple convicted under Virginia's law) · source ↗
The response: Virginia argued that its laws applied equally to both races, and that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress showed the Framers did not mean the Fourteenth Amendment to reach such laws. — Commonwealth of Virginia · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, June 12, 1967“we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Virginia law set a yearly poll tax of up to $1.50 on residents aged 21 and over and made paying it a condition of voting. Virginia residents sued to have the tax declared invalid for state elections.
The claim: The residents asked the courts to declare Virginia's poll tax unconstitutional. A three-judge lower court had dismissed their complaint, feeling bound by Breedlove v. Suttles. — Harper and other Virginia residents (appellants) (Virginia residents who had to pay the tax to vote.) · source ↗
The response: The Court's opinion describes an argument that a State may charge an equal fee for licenses, so it may charge an equal poll tax for voting. The opinion does not say who made it. — Virginia Board of Elections and state officials (appellees) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, March 24, 1966“We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.”
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 ↗
Where it stands: Decided March 24, 1966. The United States took part as a friend of the court urging reversal.
Listed under: Amendment XIV, Section 1, Amendment XXIV, Section 1
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Alabama elected its legislature from districts set under its 1901 constitution and based on the 1900 census, so some counties had far more people per legislator than others. Voters in several counties sued state election officials.
The claim: The voters alleged that the way the Alabama Legislature was apportioned gave their votes less weight than votes in other counties and denied them equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. — Voters in several Alabama counties (Sims et al.) (Voters in counties whose populations had grown the most) · source ↗
The response: The officials contended the district court erred in holding the existing plan and the two proposed plans unconstitutional, and that a federal court lacks power to order a state legislature reapportioned. — Alabama state officials (appellants in No. 23) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, June 15, 1964“an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.”
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Laws in these states required or allowed Black and white children to attend separate public schools. Families in four states sued over the schools their children attended, and the Supreme Court heard the cases together.
The claim: The plaintiffs alleged that separating children by race in public schools denied them the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. — Black children and their parents (Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka and companion cases) (Families of children in racially separate public schools) · source ↗
The response: The Court reported that in the Kansas, South Carolina and Virginia cases, three-judge federal courts denied relief to the plaintiffs on the 'separate but equal' rule from Plessy v. Ferguson, under which separate but substantially equal facilities count as equal treatment. — School boards and state officials (defendants) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, May 17, 1954“we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 ↗
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Louisiana passed a law (Act No. 111, approved July 10, 1890) requiring railway companies to provide separate cars for white and Black passengers. Homer Plessy was charged for sitting in a car assigned to the other race.
The claim: Plessy said the law was null and void because it conflicted with the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, which limits what states may do. — Homer A. Plessy (Passenger charged under the law) · source ↗
The response: Ferguson's answer in the Louisiana Supreme Court asserted that the law was constitutional; Louisiana's Attorney General appeared for the State in the U.S. Supreme Court. — Judge John H. Ferguson, for the State of Louisiana · source ↗
What the court decided · Supreme Court of the United States, May 18, 1896“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority.”
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 ↗
Listed under: Amendment XIII, Section 1, Amendment XIV, Section 1
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.
What was done: Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875, which made it a crime to deny people of any race equal use of inns, public transportation and theaters. Several people were charged under it, and five cases reached the Supreme Court.
The claim: The Court wrote that the main question in all the cases was whether the 1875 law was constitutional, that is, whether the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress power to pass it. It noted no briefs were filed for the defendants. — People charged under the 1875 Act (United States v. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols and Singleton; Robinson v. Memphis and Charleston Railroad Co.) (Defendants in prosecutions and a suit brought under the Act) · source ↗
The response: The Solicitor General defended the Act and reviewed Court decisions on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in support, as the report of the case describes. — The United States (Solicitor General Phillips) · source ↗
The court found it unconstitutional · Supreme Court of the United States, October 15, 1883“the first and second sections of the act of Congress, of March 1st, 1875, entitled "An Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights," are unconstitutional and void”
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 ↗
Listed under: Amendment XIII, Section 1, Amendment XIV, Section 1
Checked against the official record on October 11, 2026.