《美利堅合眾國憲法》第十四修正案（英語：Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution）簡稱「第十四修正案」（Amendment XIV）於1868年7月9日通過，是三條重建修正案之一。這一修正案涉及公民權利和平等法律保護，最初提出是為了解決南北戰爭後昔日奴隸的相關問題。修正案備受爭議，特別是在南部各州，這些州為了重新加入聯邦而被迫通過修正案。第十四修正案對美國歷史產生了深遠的影響，有「第二次制憲」之說[1]:207，之後的大量司法案件均是以其為基礎。特別是其第一款中「不得拒絕給予任何人以平等法律保護」的一項，是美國憲法涉及官司最多的部分之一，它對美國國內的任何聯邦和地方政府官員行為都有法律效力，但對私人行為無效。有關此修正案的法律解釋和應用在美國國內一直受到爭議，自由派通常會接受法院的裁決，並支持通過法院來推翻被指違反民權法律等行為。
1865年，國會通過了一項在後來成為《1866年民權法案（英語：Civil Rights Act of 1866）》的提案，它確保了個人的種族、膚色或之前是否曾作為奴隸及受到強制勞役等因素不會成為其能否獲得公民權的先決條件。該法案還保證法律上的利益均等，這直接打擊了內戰後南方多個州所通過的黑人法令。黑人法令試圖通過其他的一些方式，表面看來並未恢復奴隸制，但實際效果卻在許多方面導致黑人回到以前身為奴隸時的處境中。如限制其活動，迫使他們簽訂整年時長的勞役合同，禁止他們擁有槍枝，以及阻止他們到法院起訴或作證等。[6]:199-200但是，《1866年民權法案》受到了安德魯·詹森的否決，他是一位決不妥協的白人至上主義者[3]:21-22。1866年4月，國會通過投票推翻了總統的否決，法案正式成為法律，而這一推翻也增強了共和黨的信心，他們決心給黑人權利增加憲法級別的保障，而不僅依靠難以長久的政治多數優勢[3]:22-23。再者，甚至一些支持民權法案目標的共和黨人也懷疑國會是否的確擁有制訂這一法案的憲法權利[7][8]。
修正案前後起草了超過70份草案[9]。其中在1865年末由美國國會重建聯合委員會（英語：United States Congress Joint Committee on Reconstruction）提出的一份草案中，表明一州如因種族而禁止公民投票，那麼在根據該州人口總數計算國會議席數時，這部分公民的人口數也不會計入[6]:252。這一草案在聯邦眾議院獲得通過，但在聯邦參議院受阻，以麻薩諸塞州聯邦參議員查爾斯·薩姆納為代表的聯盟認為該提案是個「錯誤的妥協」，而民主黨參議員則反對黑人權利[6]:253。國會於是轉而考慮俄亥俄州聯邦眾議員約翰·賓漢姆（英語：John Bingham）提出的草案，其內容允許國會對「所有公民的生命、自由和財產」提供「平等保護」，但這份草案沒得獲得眾議院批准[6]:253。1866年4月，聯合委員會向國會提交了第三份提案，其內容經仔細協商，納入了第一和第二份提案的元素，並提出了前美利堅聯盟國債務及其支持者投票權的解決方案[6]:253，當中的措辭還在眾議院和參議院的多次差距很小的投票中作了進一步修改[6]:256。這個妥協版本最後在參眾兩院獲得了通過，兩黨態度徑渭分明，共和黨支持，民主黨反對[3]:25。
激進派共和黨人希望給因第十三修正案獲得自由的人們保障廣泛的公民權和人權，但這些權利的範圍在修正案生效前就出現了爭議[11]:1523。之前國會通過的1866年民權法案（英語：Civil Rights Act of 1866）認定所有在美利堅合眾國出生且受其管轄的人就是美國公民，第十四修正案的制訂者希望將這一原則寫入憲法，來防止這一法案被聯邦最高法院宣布違憲而被取消，或是被將來的國會通過投票改變[3]:23-24[22]。這一款也是對南方各州以暴力對付黑人行徑的回應。國會重建聯合委員會認為只有通過一項憲法修正案才能夠保護這些州中黑人的權益和福利[23]。
國會最初對修正案進行辯論時，公民條款的起草者，密西根州聯邦參議員雅各布·M·霍華德[30]形容該條款雖然與《1866年民權法案》在措辭上有些差異，但內容是相同的。亦即其中排除了美洲原住民，因為他們維持著與部落間的關係，就相當於是「外國大使和或公使的家人」一樣，出生在美國，但仍然屬於外國人[31]。據西肯塔基大學歷史學家格倫·W·拉凡特西（Glenn W. LaFantasie）所說，「有相當數量的資深參議員同意他對公民條款的觀點」[30]。其他參議員也同意各國大使或公使的孩童應該被排除[32][33]。
修正案中的特權或豁免權條款規定，「任何一州，都不得制定或實施限制合眾國公民的特權或豁免權的法律」，這一條款與憲法第四條的特權和豁免權條款（英語：Privileges and Immunities Clause）一脈相承[57]，後者保護各州公民特權和豁免權不免他州干預[58]。在1873年的屠宰場案（英語：Slaughter-House Cases）中最高法院總結指出憲法承認兩種形式的公民，一種是「國家公民」，另一種是「州公民」。法院判決特權或豁免權條款只是禁止各州對國家公民所擁有的特權和豁免權加以干涉[58][59]。法院還認為國家公民的特權和豁免權僅包括那些來自「聯邦政府、國民身份、憲法或法律」所賦予的權利[58]。法院確認了為數不多的幾項權利，包括使用港口和航道，競選聯邦公職，在公海或外國管轄範圍時受聯邦政府保護，前往政府所在地，和平集會和向政府請願，人身保護令特權以及參與政府行政管理的權利[58][59]。這一判決尚未被推翻，而且已經特別受到了幾次重申[60]。很大程度上是因為屠宰場案的狹隘判定，這一條款隨後已沉寂了一個多世紀[61]。
雖然許多州憲法都是依照聯邦憲法和聯邦法律制訂的，但這些州憲法並不一定包括媲美權利法案的同類規定。在1833年的巴倫訴巴爾的摩案（英語：Barron v. Baltimore）中，最高法院以全體一致通過裁決權利法案只是用來限制聯邦政府，對各州無效[94][95]。不過，最高法院之後通過第十四修正案的正當程序條款將大部分權利法案中的規定應用到各州，這一做法被稱為「合併原則」[68]。
美國最高法院支持的「隔離但平等」超過半個世紀，這一過程中法院已在多個案件里發現各州在隔離情況下分別提供的設施幾乎沒有均等的。一直到1954年的布朗訴托彼卡教育局案上訴到最高法院後，事情才有了轉機。在這個裡程碑性質的判決中，最高法院以全體一致的投票結果推翻了普萊西訴弗格森案中有關種族隔離合法的判決。法院認為，即使黑人和白人學校都擁有同等的師資水平，隔離本身對於黑人學生就是一種傷害，因此是違憲的。[115]這一判決受到了南方多個州的強烈抵制，之後長達幾十年的時間裡，聯邦法院一直試圖強制執行布朗案的判決，來對抗南方部分州通過各種手段反覆試圖規避種族融合的作法[116]。聯邦法院在全國各地都制訂了充滿爭議的廢除種族隔離校車法令並流傳下來[117]。在2007年的家長參與社區學校訴西雅圖第一學區教育委員會案（英語：Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1）中，法院裁定家長不能根據種族因素來判斷應該把自己的孩子送到哪一所公立學校念書[118]。
在1954年的埃爾南德斯訴德克薩斯州案（英語：Hernandez v. Texas）中，最高法院判決第十四修正案同樣對既非白人，也不是黑人的其他種族和族裔群體提供保護，例如本案中的墨西哥裔美國人[119]。在布朗案之後的半個世紀裡，法院將平等保護條款延伸到其他歷史上的弱勢群體，如女性和非婚生子女，雖然判定這些群體是否受到歧視的標準不如種族歧視那麼嚴格[120][121][122]。
在1971年的里德訴里德案中，最高法院推翻了愛達荷州偏袒男性的遺囑認證法律[130]，這是最高法院首度裁定任意的性別歧視違反平等保護條款[131]。在1976年的克雷格訴博倫案（英語：Craig v. Boren）中，法律判決法定或行政性的性別分類必須接受不偏不倚的司法審查[132][133]。之後，里德和克雷格案成為先例，被多次援引並推翻了多個州的性別歧視法律[131]。
第四款確認了國會撥出的所有美國國債的合法性。並確認無論聯邦政府還是任何一個州都不會償還南方邦聯因失去奴隸導致的損失以及因對抗北方的戰事而欠下的債務。例如南北戰爭期間，多家英國和法國銀行給予邦聯巨額貸款，以在戰爭中支持他們對抗北方[153]。在1935年的佩里訴美國案（Perry v. United States）中，最高法院根據第四款判決一種美國債券失效，並且這一失效已經「超越了國會權利（所能影響的）範圍」[154][155]。
在1966年的卡森巴克訴摩根案（英語：Katzenbach v. Morgan）中，法院支持了《1965年投票權法》的第4(e)款，其中禁止以通過讀寫測試為投票先決條件，法院認為這一款是國會對平等保護條款授權的有效行使。法院認為修正案第五款允許國會採取行動補救或預防該修正案保護的權利受到侵害[164][165]。這也是最高法院對第五款給予的一個較為寬泛的解釋[166]。但是到了1997年的伯尼市訴弗洛雷斯案（英語：City of Boerne v. Flores）中，法院收窄了國會的執法權，稱國會不得根據第五款制訂對第十四修正案權利進行實質定義或解讀的法律[167][161]。稱「任何認為國會在第十四修正案下擁有其它獨立存在且非補救性質權力的意見，本院的判例法均不予支持。[168]」法院裁定，如果國會根據第五款立法保護的公民權利與修正案其它條款「一致和相稱」，那麼這項立法就是有效的，國會的立法目標應該是防止或補救對這些公民權利的傷害[167]。
Eric Foner. In These Times. Jonathan Birnbaum; Clarence Taylor (編). 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]. （原始內容存檔於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]. （原始內容存檔於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]. （原始內容存檔於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]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於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]. （原始內容存檔於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]. （原始內容存檔於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（英語：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]. （原始內容存檔於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 (編). Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press: 145. 2006 [2013-09-05]. （原始內容存檔於2017-01-07）.
Failinger, Marie. Equal protection of the laws. Schultz, David Andrew (編). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase: 152–153. 2009 [2013-09-05]. （原始內容存檔於2017-01-07）.
Vile, John R. (編). 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. – 透過HighBeam Research . 2000-01-01 [2013-09-05]. （原始內容存檔於2016-02-06）.
Friedman, Walter. Fourteenth Amendment. Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History. – 透過HighBeam Research . 2006-01-01 [2013-09-05]. （原始內容存檔於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]. （原始內容存檔於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.
