Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which constitutional amendments explicitly apply to non-citizens in the United States?
Executive summary
The Constitution does not list a set of amendments that “explicitly apply” only to non‑citizens; instead, many provisions use the words “person” or “people,” and courts have long held that several amendments protect non‑citizens present in the United States — most notably the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due‑process and equal‑protection guarantees and First Amendment protections of speech and petition [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, some rights and political privileges (for example, voting or certain offices) are tied to citizenship by text or longstanding practice, and states continue to debate whether to enshrine citizenship prerequisites in their constitutions [4] [5] [6].
1. The constitutional language Democrats and Republicans both cite: “person” and “the people”
Much of the Bill of Rights and later amendments use “person” or “the people” rather than “citizen,” which has led courts and commentators to treat many protections as extending beyond citizens. For example, commentators note the First Amendment’s text makes no citizen/non‑citizen distinction and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause applies to “any person within its jurisdiction” [2] [4]. Legal guides and reporting routinely describe how that textual choice underpins protections for non‑citizens [3] [7].
2. Core protections courts have explicitly applied to non‑citizens
The Constitution Annotated and related Supreme Court decisions record that aliens physically present in the United States are “persons” entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment and to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; the Annotated Essay cites cases holding even unlawfully present aliens are entitled to these protections [1]. Major outlets and legal primers likewise list the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments among the rights that operate for non‑citizens in many contexts [2] [3].
3. Areas where the law treats non‑citizens differently — immigration, admission, and political rights
Congress and the executive possess broad authority over admission and removal of non‑citizens, a sphere where courts have recognized differential treatment is often constitutional; the Legal Information Institute notes the Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed rules for aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens, especially concerning entry and exclusion [8]. Voting and holding certain public offices remain tied to citizenship by statute or constitutional text or by state constitutional amendments; recent state ballot measures and federal proposals seek to clarify or tighten those lines [9] [6] [5].
4. State constitutional moves to make voting explicitly citizen‑only
Several states have recently placed or considered explicit citizenship language into state constitutions to bar non‑citizen voting, a trend reflected in reporting about Texas and other states: Texas voters considered an amendment to state law to say “persons who are not citizens of the United States” cannot vote, and similar measures have appeared on ballots elsewhere [6] [5]. At the federal level, a 2025 House joint resolution proposed a formal amendment to prohibit persons who are not citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents from voting in elections [9].
5. Disagreement among scholars on specific rights — example: the Second Amendment
Scholarly debate persists on whether particular rights apply to non‑citizens. For example, at least one law‑review article argues the Second Amendment’s reference to “the people” should be read to exclude non‑citizens based on history and precedent, while other commentators emphasize that many rights traditionally use “the people” or “person” and thus extend to non‑citizens [10] [2]. The sources show no single consensus across all rights; instead, courts weigh text, history, and functional considerations in each area [10] [1].
6. What the reporting does not settle — fine lines and case‑specific outcomes
Available sources do not provide an exhaustive catalogue saying “these amendments explicitly apply” to non‑citizens and “these do not.” Instead, they show that core procedural and civil liberties protections (First, Fifth, Fourteenth) have been applied to aliens in many decisions and annotations, while other provisions (like those touching voting or certain civic offices) are governed by different text and political rules and remain contested in state and federal policymaking [1] [3] [9].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking practical guidance
If you want a short takeaway: the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are repeatedly identified by legal authorities and reporting as protecting non‑citizens present in the United States [2] [1] [3]. Other rights may or may not extend to non‑citizens depending on statutory language, historical practice, and court interpretation — and state ballot measures or proposed federal amendments continue to attempt to define or restrict political rights like voting [9] [6] [5].