Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 57

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

9 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

continued  its  work.    See  2  K.  Lash,  The  Reconstruction 
Amendments 8 (2021).  In April, Representative Thaddeus
Stevens  proposed  to  the  Joint  Committee  an  amendment 
that began, “[n]o discrimination shall be made by any State 
nor  by  the  United  States  as  to  the  civil  rights  of  persons
because  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.” 
S. Doc. No. 711, 63d Cong., 1st Sess., 31–32 (1915) (reprint-
ing the Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction 
for the Thirty-Ninth Congress).  Stevens’ proposal was later 
revised to read as follows: “ ‘No State shall make or enforce 
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of 
citizens  of  the  United  States;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process 
of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the 
equal protection of the laws.’ ”  Id., at 39.  This revised text 
was submitted to the full House on April 30, 1866.  Cong.
Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2286–2287.  Like the even-
tual  first  section  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  this  pro-
posal embodied the familiar Privileges or Immunities, Due 
Process, and Equal Protection Clauses.  And, importantly, 
it also featured an enforcement clause—with text borrowed 
from  the  Thirteenth  Amendment—conferring  upon  Con-
gress the power to enforce its provisions.  Ibid. 

Stevens explained that the draft was intended to “allo[w] 
Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so 
far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate 
equally  upon  all.”  Id.,  at  2459.  Moreover,  Stevens’  later 
statements  indicate that he did not believe there was a dif-
ference “in substance between the new proposal and” ear-
lier  measures  calling  for  impartial  and  equal  treatment
without regard to race.  U. S. Brown Reargument Brief 44
(noting a distinction only with respect to a suffrage provi-
sion).  And, Bingham argued that the need for the proposed
text was “one of the lessons that have been taught . . . by
the history of the past four years of terrific conflict” during
the Civil War.  Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2542.