《美利坚合众国宪法》第十四修正案（英语：Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution）简称“第十四修正案”（Amendment XIV）于1868年7月9日通过，是三条重建修正案之一。这一修正案涉及公民权利和平等法律保护，最初提出是为了解决南北战争后昔日奴隶的相关问题。修正案备受争议，特别是在南部各州，这些州为了重新加入联邦而被迫通过修正案。第十四修正案对美国历史产生了深远的影响，有“第二次制宪”之说[1]:207，之后的大量司法案件均是以其为基础。特别是其第一款中“不得拒绝给予任何人以平等法律保护”的一项，是美国宪法涉及官司最多的部分之一，它对美国国内的任何联邦和地方政府官员行为都有法律效力，但对私人行为无效。有关此修正案的法律解释和应用在美国国内一直受到争议，自由派通常会接受法院的裁决，并支持通过法院来推翻被指违反民权法律等行为。
1865年，国会通过了一项在后来成为《1866年民权法案（英语：Civil Rights Act of 1866）》的提案，它确保了个人的种族、肤色或之前是否曾作为奴隶及受到强制劳役等因素不会成为其能否获得公民权的先决条件。该法案还保证法律上的利益均等，这直接打击了内战后南方多个州所通过的黑人法令。黑人法令试图通过其他的一些方式，表面看来并未恢复奴隶制，但实际效果却在许多方面导致黑人回到以前身为奴隶时的处境中。如限制其活动，迫使他们签订整年时长的劳役合同，禁止他们拥有枪支，以及阻止他们到法院起诉或作证等。[6]:199-200但是，《1866年民权法案》受到了安德鲁·约翰逊的否决，他是一位决不妥协的白人至上主义者[3]:21-22。1866年4月，国会通过投票推翻了总统的否决，法案正式成为法律，而这一推翻也增强了共和党的信心，他们决心给黑人权利增加宪法级别的保障，而不仅依靠难以长久的政治多数优势[3]:22-23。再者，甚至一些支持民权法案目标的共和党人也怀疑国会是否的确拥有制订这一法案的宪法权利[7][8]。
修正案前后起草了超过70份草案[9]。其中在1865年末由美国国会重建联合委员会（英语：United States Congress Joint Committee on Reconstruction）提出的一份草案中，表明一州如因种族而禁止公民投票，那么在根据该州人口总数计算国会议席数时，这部分公民的人口数也不会计入[6]:252。这一草案在联邦众议院获得通过，但在联邦参议院受阻，以马萨诸塞州联邦参议员查尔斯·萨姆纳为代表的联盟认为该提案是个“错误的妥协”，而民主党参议员则反对黑人权利[6]:253。国会于是转而考虑俄亥俄州联邦众议员约翰·宾汉姆（英语：John Bingham）提出的草案，其内容允许国会对“所有公民的生命、自由和财产”提供“平等保护”，但这份草案没得获得众议院批准[6]:253。1866年4月，联合委员会向国会提交了第三份提案，其内容经仔细协商，纳入了第一和第二份提案的元素，并提出了前美利坚联盟国债务及其支持者投票权的解决方案[6]:253，当中的措辞还在众议院和参议院的多次差距很小的投票中作了进一步修改[6]:256。这个妥协版本最后在参众两院获得了通过，两党态度径渭分明，共和党支持，民主党反对[3]:25。
激进派共和党人希望给因第十三修正案获得自由的人们保障广泛的公民权和人权，但这些权利的范围在修正案生效前就出现了争议[11]:1523。之前国会通过的1866年民权法案（英语：Civil Rights Act of 1866）认定所有在美利坚合众国出生且受其管辖的人就是美国公民，第十四修正案的制订者希望将这一原则写入宪法，来防止这一法案被联邦最高法院宣布违宪而被取消，或是被将来的国会通过投票改变[3]:23-24[22]。这一款也是对南方各州以暴力对付黑人行径的回应。国会重建联合委员会认为只有通过一项宪法修正案才能够保护这些州中黑人的权益和福利[23]。
国会最初对修正案进行辩论时，公民条款的起草者，密歇根州联邦参议员雅各布·M·霍华德[30]形容该条款虽然与《1866年民权法案》在措辞上有些差异，但内容是相同的。亦即其中排除了美洲原住民，因为他们维持着与部落间的关系，就相当于是“外国大使和或公使的家人”一样，出生在美国，但仍然属于外国人[31]。据西肯塔基大学历史学家格伦·W·拉凡特西（Glenn W. LaFantasie）所说，“有相当数量的资深参议员同意他对公民条款的观点”[30]。其他参议员也同意各国大使或公使的孩童应该被排除[32][33]。
修正案中的特权或豁免权条款规定，“任何一州，都不得制定或实施限制合众国公民的特权或豁免权的法律”，这一条款与宪法第四条的特权和豁免权条款（英语：Privileges and Immunities Clause）一脉相承[57]，后者保护各州公民特权和豁免权不免他州干预[58]。在1873年的屠宰场案（英语：Slaughter-House Cases）中最高法院总结指出宪法承认两种形式的公民，一种是“国家公民”，另一种是“州公民”。法院判决特权或豁免权条款只是禁止各州对国家公民所拥有的特权和豁免权加以干涉[58][59]。法院还认为国家公民的特权和豁免权仅包括那些来自“联邦政府、国民身份、宪法或法律”所赋予的权利[58]。法院确认了为数不多的几项权利，包括使用港口和航道，竞选联邦公职，在公海或外国管辖范围时受联邦政府保护，前往政府所在地，和平集会和向政府请愿，人身保护令特权以及参与政府行政管理的权利[58][59]。这一判决尚未被推翻，而且已经特别受到了几次重申[60]。很大程度上是因为屠宰场案的狭隘判定，这一条款随后已沉寂了一个多世纪[61]。
虽然许多州宪法都是依照联邦宪法和联邦法律制订的，但这些州宪法并不一定包括媲美权利法案的同类规定。在1833年的巴伦诉巴尔的摩案（英语：Barron v. Baltimore）中，最高法院以全体一致通过裁决权利法案只是用来限制联邦政府，对各州无效[94][95]。不过，最高法院之后通过第十四修正案的正当程序条款将大部分权利法案中的规定应用到各州，这一做法被称为“合并原则”[68]。
美国最高法院支持的“隔离但平等”超过半个世纪，这一过程中法院已在多个案件里发现各州在隔离情况下分别提供的设施几乎没有均等的。一直到1954年的布朗诉托皮卡教育局案上诉到最高法院后，事情才有了转机。在这个里程碑性质的判决中，最高法院以全体一致的投票结果推翻了普莱西诉弗格森案中有关种族隔离合法的判决。法院认为，即使黑人和白人学校都拥有同等的师资水平，隔离本身对于黑人学生就是一种伤害，因此是违宪的。[115]这一判决受到了南方多个州的强烈抵制，之后长达几十年的时间里，联邦法院一直试图强制执行布朗案的判决，来对抗南方部分州通过各种手段反复试图规避种族融合的作法[116]。联邦法院在全国各地都制订了充满争议的废除种族隔离校车法令并流传下来[117]。在2007年的家长参与社区学校诉西雅图第一学区教育委员会案（英语：Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1）中，法院裁定家长不能根据种族因素来判断应该把自己的孩子送到哪一所公立学校念书[118]。
在1954年的埃尔南德斯诉得克萨斯州案（英语：Hernandez v. Texas）中，最高法院判决第十四修正案同样对既非白人，也不是黑人的其他种族和族裔群体提供保护，例如本案中的墨西哥裔美国人[119]。在布朗案之后的半个世纪里，法院将平等保护条款延伸到其他历史上的弱势群体，如女性和非婚生子女，虽然判定这些群体是否受到歧视的标准不如种族歧视那么严格[120][121][122]。
在1971年的里德诉里德案中，最高法院推翻了爱达荷州偏袒男性的遗嘱认证法律[130]，这是最高法院首度裁定任意的性别歧视违反平等保护条款[131]。在1976年的克雷格诉博伦案（英语：Craig v. Boren）中，法律判决法定或行政性的性别分类必须接受不偏不倚的司法审查[132][133]。之后，里德和克雷格案成为先例，被多次援引并推翻了多个州的性别歧视法律[131]。
第四款确认了国会拨出的所有美国国债的合法性。并确认无论联邦政府还是任何一个州都不会偿还南方邦联因失去奴隶导致的损失以及因对抗北方的战事而欠下的债务。例如南北战争期间，多家英国和法国银行给予邦联巨额贷款，以在战争中支持他们对抗北方[153]。在1935年的佩里诉美国案（Perry v. United States）中，最高法院根据第四款判决一种美国债券失效，并且这一失效已经“超越了国会权利（所能影响的）范围”[154][155]。
在1966年的卡森巴克诉摩根案（英语：Katzenbach v. Morgan）中，法院支持了《1965年投票权法》的第4(e)款，其中禁止以通过读写测试为投票先决条件，法院认为这一款是国会对平等保护条款授权的有效行使。法院认为修正案第五款允许国会采取行动补救或预防该修正案保护的权利受到侵害[164][165]。这也是最高法院对第五款给予的一个较为宽泛的解释[166]。但是到了1997年的伯尼市诉弗洛雷斯案（英语：City of Boerne v. Flores）中，法院收窄了国会的执法权，称国会不得根据第五款制订对第十四修正案权利进行实质定义或解读的法律[167][161]。称“任何认为国会在第十四修正案下拥有其它独立存在且非补救性质权力的意见，本院的判例法均不予支持。[168]”法院裁定，如果国会根据第五款立法保护的公民权利与修正案其它条款“一致和相称”，那么这项立法就是有效的，国会的立法目标应该是防止或补救对这些公民权利的伤害[167]。
Eric Foner. In These Times. Jonathan Birnbaum; Clarence Taylor (编). The Second American Revolution. Civil Rights Since 1787. New York University Press. 2000. ISBN 0814782493.
Finkelman, Paul, John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment. Akron Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 671, 2003 (Ssrn.com). 2009-04-02. SSRN 1120308.
Harrell, David; Gaustad, Edwin. Unto A Good Land: A History Of The American People 1. Eerdmans Publishing. 2005: 520. The most important, and the one that has occasioned the most litigation over time as to its meaning and application, was Section One.
Tsesis, Alexander, The Inalienable Core of Citizenship: From Dred Scott to the Rehnquist Court. Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 39, 2008 (Ssrn.com). SSRN 1023809.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. the Library of Congress. [2013-09-04]. （原始内容存档于2021-04-12）. Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States...If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. the Library of Congress. [2013-09-04]. （原始内容存档于2021-04-18）. Trumbull, during the debate, said, "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?...We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.... If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?.... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another?... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895. the Library of Congress. [2013-09-04]. （原始内容存档于2021-04-12）. Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the U.S. possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.
Lee, Margaret. Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents(PDF). Congressional Research Service. 2010-08-12 [2013-09-04]. （原始内容存档(PDF)于2012-09-11）. Over the last decade or so, concern about illegal immigration has sporadically led to a re-examination of a long-established tenet of U.S. citizenship, codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and §301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)), that a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. [...] "some scholars argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the children of unauthorized aliens because the problem of unauthorized aliens did not exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was considered in Congress and ratified by the states.
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. the Library of Congress. [2013-09-04]. （原始内容存档于2021-04-12）. The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange: Mr. Cowan: "I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Mr. Trumbull: "Undoubtedly." ... Mr. Trumbull: "I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens." Mr. Cowan: "The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument." Mr. Trumbull: "If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European."
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2. the Library of Congress. [2013-09-04]. （原始内容存档于2021-04-12）. During the debate on the Amendment, Senator John Conness of California declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens."
There were bilateral treaties with Albania, Austria-Hungary, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Haiti, Hesse, Honduras, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Prussia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Wurttemberg. For the text of the treaty with Great Britain see Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain, Relative to Naturalization, Concluded May 13, 1870, Ratifications Exchanged August 10, 1870, Proclaimed by the President of the United States, September 16, 1870, Treaties and Convention between the United States and Other Powers, Since July 4, 1776, Revised Edition, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office: 405, 1873 [2013-09-05]. Norway and Sweden were included in a single treaty signed in 1869 when the two countries were joined in a personal union under the Swedish monarchy. The Interamerican Convention of 1906 covered Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Panama and Uruguay. For the text of the 1906 Inter-American Convention see Status of Naturalized Persons who Return to Country Of Origin (Inter-American), Convention signed at Rio de Janeiro, August 13, 1906, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States 1776-1949 (compiled under the direction of Charles. I. Bevans), 1 (Multilateral) 1776-1917, Washington, DC: The Department of State, Government Printing Office: 544, 1968 [2013-09-05]. The treaties with each of the German states except Prussia became obsolete when the German Empire was proclaimed in 1871. The treaties with Prussia and Austria-Hungary lapsed with the American declaration of war in 1917 and were never revived. Brazil, Mexico and the United Kingdom terminated their treaties; and Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay withdrew from the 1906 convention.
Saenz v. Roe, 526（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 526）U.S.489 (1999), quote:Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." (emphasis added)
CRS Annotated Constitution. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. [2013-06-12]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-12）. [w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Foster, James C. Bingham, John Armor. Finkleman, Paul (编). Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press: 145. 2006 [2013-09-05]. （原始内容存档于2017-01-07）.
Failinger, Marie. Equal protection of the laws. Schultz, David Andrew (编). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase: 152–153. 2009 [2013-09-05]. （原始内容存档于2017-01-07）.
Vile, John R. (编). Corporations. Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues: 1789 - 2002. ABC-CLIO: 116. 2003.
Patterson, James. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History). Oxford University Press. 2002. ISBN 0-19-515632-3.
Karst, Kenneth L. Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. – 通过HighBeam Research . 2000-01-01 [2013-09-05]. （原始内容存档于2016-02-06）.
Friedman, Walter. Fourteenth Amendment. Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History. – 通过HighBeam Research . 2006-01-01 [2013-09-05]. （原始内容存档于2014-07-14）.
Chin, Gabriel J. Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth?. Georgetown Law Journal. 2004, 92: 259.
Liptak, Adam. The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out. The New York Times. 2011-07-24 [2013-09-05]. （原始内容存档于2013-04-04）. In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.
