Watch our short video about Outside Legal Counsel PLC
Fourteenth Amendment
Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment extends Bill of Rights protections to states via due process and equal protection clauses, ensuring no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures or discriminatory treatment. It levels the field against unequal enforcement, vital for minorities, small businesses, and rural folks facing biased local rules. Ratified on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments following the Civil War, it was designed to secure citizenship and rights for newly freed slaves, overturning the Dred Scott decision by granting birthright citizenship and countering discriminatory Black Codes in Southern states.
Crafted by Radical Republicans like John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens amid bitter debates, it required Confederate states' ratification for congressional readmission, expanding federal oversight to protect against state abuses. Its meaning includes citizenship for all born or naturalized in the U.S., due process (procedural fairness and substantive rights like family integrity), equal protection against discrimination, and congressional enforcement power—principles that have fueled landmark reforms from school desegregation to voting rights. OLC uses it to dismantle selective injustices, proving governments must treat citizens equally with no favorites and no vendettas.
Overview of Cases
OLC's Fourteenth Amendment practice safeguards families, business owners, and defendants from procedural shortcuts and biased enforcement.
Aquitted Conduct
In People v. Beck, OLC attorney Philip L. Ellison advocated for defendant Eric Beck, whose sentence was enhanced based on "acquitted conduct." Acquitted conduct refers to the practice in the legal system where a judge may consider conduct for which a defendant was found not guilty when determining their sentence for other convictions. In what has been called the most serious criminal justice decision in recent Michigan history, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that acquitted conduct cannot be considered at sentencing and emphasized that once a defendant is acquitted of a crime, it is a violation of due process to impose a sentence based on that same crime.Substantive Due Process
In Johnson v. Morales and the related Johnson v. City of Saginaw, OLC represented business owner Rita Johnson regarding her unfair treatment by officials from the City of Saginaw. After a shooting at her Saginaw venue, the city suspended her business license and water service without notice, citing "emergency" powers. The Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal holding that procedural due process requires pre-deprivation hearings for license suspensions unless true emergencies exist. Building on this, Johnson v. City of Saginaw also affirmed that the water shutoff violated due process, as it wasn't a genuine emergency and deprived Johnson of livelihood without opportunity to respond, granting partial summary judgment and paving the way the settlement secured from the City.
Equal Protection
OLC's success in Tamm v. Nerad revived equal protection claims against Lincoln Township's selective dock citations. After plaintiffs won dock rights in a prior federal lawsuit, the township targeted them alone. The appeal succeeded and the case remanded for trial on whether this was discriminatory enforcement against those who dared sue.Take Action
Experienced unequal treatment or rushed due process, or government adverse action without cause? Reclaim your equality with proven civil rights advocacy. Get your case evaluated today.