From Exclusion to Empowerment: Why the 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, and Dred Scott Decision Still Matter

Ash A Milton
Aug 11
4 min read

America’s journey toward justice has never been a straight line. It’s a path marked by struggle, resistance, and transformation. Three pivotal moments—the Dred Scott Decision, the 14th Amendment, and the 19th Amendment—stand as milestones in the ongoing fight for equality. Understanding their historical weight isn’t just academic—it’s essential to grasping the foundations of civil rights and the responsibilities of citizenship today.

The Dred Scott Decision: A Legal Wall Against Freedom

In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered one of the most infamous rulings in its history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom after living in free territories. The Court’s decision? He had no right to sue because, as a Black man, he was not—and could never be—a citizen of the United States.

This ruling didn’t just deny Scott his freedom. It declared that African Americans, free or enslaved, had no constitutional protections. It reinforced slavery’s grip on the nation and deepened the divide that would erupt into the Civil War. The decision exposed the brutal limits of American democracy and the urgent need for constitutional reform.

The 14th Amendment: Citizenship Redefined

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment was a direct rebuke to the Dred Scott Decision. It established birthright citizenship and guaranteed “equal protection of the laws” to all persons. For the first time, the Constitution explicitly recognized formerly enslaved people as citizens.

But the 14th Amendment did more than correct a historical injustice—it became the cornerstone of civil rights litigation. From Brown v. Board of Education to Obergefell v. Hodges, its Equal Protection Clause has been used to challenge discrimination and expand rights for marginalized groups. It’s the legal backbone of modern equality.

The 19th Amendment: Expanding the Electorate

While the 14th Amendment laid the groundwork for citizenship, it didn’t guarantee voting rights—especially not for women. That changed in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which prohibited denying the right to vote based on sex.

The 19th Amendment was the result of decades of activism, sacrifice, and strategic organizing by suffragists. It didn’t just enfranchise women—it redefined political participation and opened the door for future movements demanding voting rights for all, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Why These Moments Still Matter

Together, these three legal landmarks tell a story of exclusion, resistance, and progress:

The Dred Scott Decision reminds us how law can be weaponized to deny humanity.
The 14th Amendment shows how constitutional change can restore dignity and expand justice.
The 19th Amendment proves that democracy is strengthened when more voices are heard.

ICE Raids and the 14th Amendment: A Constitutional Collision

Recent immigration raids—like the one in Los Angeles where 16 people were arrested near a Home Depot despite a court order limiting such actions—have reignited debates about constitutional rights and federal overreach. These operations often target immigrant communities with aggressive tactics, including surprise detentions and mass roundups, even in sanctuary cities.

This raises a critical question: What does the 14th Amendment really protect?

The 14th Amendment guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens and that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That phrase—“any person”—is key. It doesn’t say citizen, it says person. That means undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers, and visa holders are all entitled to basic constitutional protections, including due process and equal treatment under the law.

ICE raids often operate in legal gray zones:

- Detaining individuals without clear probable cause

- Denying access to legal counsel

- Targeting communities based on ethnicity or occupation

These practices challenge the spirit—and sometimes the letter—of the 14th Amendment. When federal agents conduct “roving” patrols or arrest people based on appearance or location, they risk violating the very principles of fairness and equality that the amendment enshrines.

Child Marriage vs. Voting Rights: A Constitutional Contradiction

In 37 U.S. states, minors can legally marry—thirteen states have no minimum age for marriage. Yet these same minors are barred from voting until age 18. This contradiction reveals a troubling gap in how rights and responsibilities are assigned. If a child is deemed mature enough to enter a lifelong legal contract like marriage, why are they denied a voice in the democratic process?

The 14th Amendment promises equal protection under the law, but child marriage laws expose how that promise is selectively applied. Many of these marriages involve girls marrying older men, often under coercive circumstances. Child marriage can lead to interrupted education, increased health risks, and long-term economic instability. It’s not just a legal loophole—it’s a human rights issue.

Ending child marriage is not just about protecting minors—it’s about aligning our laws with the constitutional values of autonomy, equality, and justice. If we truly believe in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, then we must ensure that no child is forced into adulthood before they’re allowed to participate in shaping their future.

✊ Conclusion: The Constitution Is a Living Promise

The Constitution wasn’t born perfect. It’s been amended, contested, and reimagined by generations who believed in a more inclusive America. The 14th and 19th Amendments—and the painful legacy of Dred Scott—are reminders that progress is possible, but never guaranteed. It’s up to us to carry that promise forward.

Would you like this adapted for a classroom newsletter, social media post, or podcast script?

The Dred Scott Decision once denied citizenship to an entire race. The 14th Amendment corrected that injustice. The 19th Amendment expanded democratic participation. But today, ICE raids remind us that constitutional rights are not self-executing—they must be defended.

Whether it’s a food stand in Los Angeles or a construction site in Florida, the question remains: Are we living up to the promise of equal protection for all? The Constitution is not just a historical document—it’s a living contract. And it’s up to us to hold it accountable.