Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 22

14 

UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Beyond  its  emphasis  on  equal  citizenship,  Justice  Har-
lan’s  Plessy  dissent  also  specifically  recognized  that  the
Federal Government could not engage in racial discrimina-
tion.  The Fourteenth Amendment, Harlan explained, “gave
citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States, 
and residing here,” “obliterated the race line from our sys-
tems of governments, National and State,” and “placed our 
free institutions upon the broad and sure foundation of the
equality of all men before the law.”  Id., at 563 (emphasis 
added).  In short, Harlan understood that citizenship and 
equality went hand in hand and that equal citizenship pro-
hibited  the  Federal  Government,  as  much  as  the  States, 
from discriminating with respect to civil rights. 

While the historical evidence above is by no means con-
clusive,  it  offers  substantial  support  for  the  proposition
that,  by  conferring  citizenship,  the  Citizenship  Clause 
guarantees citizens equal treatment by the Federal Govern-
ment with respect to civil rights.5 

* 

* 
Justice  Harlan  stated  in  Plessy  that  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  “added  greatly  to  the  dignity  and  glory  of
American  citizenship.”  Id.  at  555.  And  the  “best  part  of 

* 

—————— 

5 Adopting  this  understanding  of  the  Citizenship  Clause  necessarily 
prompts  additional  questions.    For  example,  beyond  prohibiting  racial 
discrimination with respect to civil rights, what other forms of discrimi-
nation does the Citizenship Clause proscribe?  Is access to government 
benefits a “privilege” or “immunity” of citizenship—i.e., a civil right?  See, 
e.g., id., at 1456 (observing that government benefits supported by gen-
eral taxation might have been understood by the Reconstruction gener-
ation as a privilege of citizenship).  And, most relevant to Bolling itself, 
is access to public education a “privilege” or “immunity” of citizenship? 
See,  e.g.,  M. McConnell,  Originalism  and  the  Desegregation  Decisions, 
81 Va. L. Rev. 947, 1023–1043, 1103–1105 (1995) (discussing the histor-
ical evidence).