Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–303 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. 
JOSE LUIS VAELLO MADERO 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

[April 21, 2022]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
I join the opinion of the Court.  I write separately to ad-
dress the premise that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment contains an equal protection component whose 
substance  is  “precisely  the  same” as  the  Equal  Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Weinberger v. Wie-
senfeld,  420  U. S.  636,  638,  n. 2  (1975).    Although  I  have
joined  the  Court  in  applying  this  doctrine,  see  Adarand 
Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 213–217 (1995), I 
now doubt whether it comports with the original meaning
of the Constitution.  Firmer ground for prohibiting the Fed-
eral Government from discriminating on the basis of race,
at least with respect to civil rights, may well be found in the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. 

I 
Until the middle of the 20th century, this Court consist-
ently  recognized  that  the  Fifth  Amendment  “contains  no 
equal protection clause and it provides no guaranty against 
discriminatory  legislation  by  Congress.”  Detroit  Bank  v. 
United States, 317  U. S. 329, 337 (1943); see also LaBelle 
Iron  Works  v.  United  States,  256  U. S.  377,  392  (1921). 
However,  the  Court  did  maintain  that  the  Fifth  Amend-
ment’s Due Process Clause prohibited “such discriminatory