Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

8 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 
AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

the rights of citizens).  As debates continued, it became in-
creasingly apparent that safeguarding the 1866 Act, includ-
ing its promise of black citizenship and the equal rights that 
citizenship  entailed,  would  require  further  submission  to
the  people of  the  United  States  in  the  form  of  a  proposed 
constitutional  amendment.  See,  e.g.,  Cong.  Globe,  39th
Cong., 1st Sess., at 498 (statement of Sen. Van Winkle). 

B 
Critically,  many  of  those  who  believed  that  Congress
lacked the authority to enact the 1866 Act also supported 
the principle of racial equality.  So, almost immediately fol-
lowing the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, sev-
eral proposals for further amendments were submitted in
Congress.  One such proposal, approved by the Joint Com-
mittee on Reconstruction and then submitted to the House 
of  Representatives  on  February  26,  1866,  would  have  de-
clared  that  “[t]he  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all 
laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the
citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citi-
zens in the several States, and to all persons in the several 
States  equal  protection  in  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property.”  Id., at 1033–1034.  Representative John Bing-
ham, its drafter, was among those who believed Congress 
lacked the power to enact the 1866 Act.  See id., at 1291. 
Specifically, he believed the “very letter of the Constitution” 
already required equality, but the enforcement of that re-
quirement “is of the reserved powers of the States.”  Cong. 
Globe,  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  at  1034,  1291  (statement  of 
Rep.  Bingham).  His  proposed  constitutional  amendment 
accordingly  would  provide  a  clear  constitutional  basis  for
the 1866 Act and ensure that future Congresses would be 
unable to repeal it.  See W. Nelson, The Fourteenth Amend-
ment 48–49 (1988).

Discussion of Bingham’s initial draft was later postponed 
in  the  House,  but  the Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction