US Constitutional Law: 14th Amendment Jurisprudence Evolution

This is the second part in a series for SCOTUSblog recounting two decades of constitutional change through the five editions of our casebook, the first published in 2008 and the latest to be published this December.In 2005, the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment jurisprudence seemed at equipoise. The equal protection clause permitted the use of race to promote diversity in classrooms. The due process clause protected a right to abortion as a form of liberty, and sexual privacy under the rubric of dignity. And any challenge to constitutional birthright citizenship seemed unthinkable. Yet, that status quo would soon be turned upside down, as the next two decades brought a revolution to each facet of 14th Amendment law.Equal protection alteredFor a generation, equal protection doctrine seemed stable. Indeed, in our constitutional law casebook, the chapters on the equal protection clause remained virtually unchanged from the first edition in 2008 to the fourth edition in 2022. During this span, the trilogy of affirmative action cases remained the same. The fractured decision in 1978’s Regents of the University of California v. Bakke signaled that affirmative action could be used in certain narrowly tailored contexts – that is, to help promote the educational benefits that flow from diverse student bodies. A quarter century later, the Supreme Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. In those cases, the justices rejected mechanical formulas for determining racial pref