Can non-citizens claim 14th Amendment protections in state courts?
Executive summary
Non‑citizens can and do invoke major protections of the Fourteenth Amendment in state courts: the Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees have repeatedly been held to protect “persons” within a state’s jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, while other clauses—most notably the Privileges or Immunities Clause—refer explicitly to citizens and have been treated differently by courts [1] [2] [3]. Landmark case law and scholarly summaries show a practical rule: core constitutional protections apply to non‑citizens present in the United States, but certain distinctions—like eligibility for particular public offices or privileges tied explicitly to citizenship—remain permissible and are treated under heightened judicial scrutiny when based on alienage [4] [5].
1. How the Amendment reads and why “person” matters
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three operative promises—the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause—and it uses the word “person” in the latter two protections while reserving “citizens” in the Privileges or Immunities Clause, a textual distinction at the root of modern litigation over who may claim those protections [1] [6]. Constitutional commentators and the Library of Congress annotation emphasize that the Amendment forbids states from depriving “any person” of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying “any person” equal protection, language courts have read as extending beyond citizens [3] [2].
2. Supreme Court and lower‑court practice: non‑citizens as “persons”
The Supreme Court and federal commentators have long treated aliens physically present in the United States as “persons” entitled to due process and, in many contexts, equal protection: decisions and surveys note that aliens—lawful and even unlawful entrants—have procedural due process rights and that Plyler v. Doe held children of undocumented immigrants are protected by the Equal Protection Clause [4] [7]. The Constitution Annotated and legal analyses underscore that Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections have been applied against states and state actors, and that the incorporation doctrine makes many Bill of Rights guarantees enforceable in state courts as well [3] [8].
3. Limits, litigation contours, and the “alienage” category
While due process and equal protection reach non‑citizens, courts apply special rules when laws discriminate on the basis of alienage: the Supreme Court has treated alienage as a suspect classification in many contexts, demanding strict scrutiny for state laws that exclude non‑citizens from general public life, yet it has allowed exceptions where Congress has plenary immigration power or where the state can show a compelling interest tied to democracy or sovereignty [5] [9]. Case law cited by legal resources shows the Court striking down state exclusions from professions and economic opportunities—In re Griffiths and Takahashi are recurring examples—while acknowledging some citizenship‑based limits like voting or holding certain public offices [5] [9] [2].
4. Practical effect in state courts and unsettled edges
In practice, non‑citizens invoke Fourteenth Amendment claims in state courts to challenge police procedure, deprivation of public benefits, school access, and licensing decisions; state courts adjudicate these claims under the Amendment as applied to state action, often following federal precedents and standards of scrutiny described in the constitutional annotations [3] [4] [7]. But important boundaries remain contested: the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been narrowly read since the Slaughter‑House era, some rights remain expressly limited to citizens (e.g., voting) and immigration‑specific doctrines limit federalism pressures, meaning outcomes can turn on the factual posture, the forum, and whether the claim implicates immigration enforcement or state regulatory authority [1] [2] [5].
5. Competing narratives and the stakes
Advocacy groups and scholars stress the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections for vulnerable non‑citizens as a bulwark against arbitrary state action—an argument advanced by organizations like Vera and echoed in constitutional essays describing due process for immigrants—while some state actors argue that certain citizenship distinctions are necessary for democratic governance and public trust in particular roles, leading courts to balance competing interests under varying standards of review [8] [5]. Reporting and legal summaries agree on the core hold: non‑citizens are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment for due process and equal protection purposes, but the scope and intensity of protection depend on the clause invoked, the classification at issue, and settled precedents that leave some doctrinal gaps still open to litigation [4] [3] [9].