Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

I 

In the 1860s, Congress proposed and the States ratified 
the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments.    And,  with 
the  authority  conferred  by  these  Amendments,  Congress 
passed  two  landmark  Civil  Rights  Acts.    Throughout  the 
debates on each of these measures, their proponents repeat-
edly affirmed their view of equal citizenship and the racial
equality that flows from it.  In fact, they held this principle 
so deeply that their crowning accomplishment—the Four-
teenth  Amendment—ensures  racial  equality  with  no  tex-
tual  reference  to  race  whatsoever.  The  history  of  these
measures’ enactment renders their motivating principle as
clear as their text: All citizens of the United States, regard-
less of skin color, are equal before the law. 

I do not contend that all of the individuals who put forth
and  ratified  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  universally  be-
lieved this to be true.  Some Members of the proposing Con-
gress, for example, opposed the Amendment.  And, the his-
torical record—particularly with respect to the debates on
ratification in the States—is sparse.  Nonetheless, substan-
tial evidence suggests that the Fourteenth Amendment was
passed to “establis[h] the broad constitutional principle of 
full and complete equality of all persons under the law,” for-
bidding “all legal distinctions based on race or color.”  Supp.
Brief for United States on Reargument in Brown v. Board 
of  Education,  O. T.  1953,  No.  1  etc.,  p. 115  (U. S.  Brown 
Reargument Brief ).

This  was  Justice  Harlan’s  view  in  his  lone  dissent  in 
Plessy, where he observed that “[o]ur Constitution is color-
blind.”  163 U. S., at 559.  It was the view of the Court in 
Brown, which rejected “ ‘any authority . . . to use race as a 
factor in affording educational opportunities.’ ”  Parents In-
volved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 
551 U. S. 701, 747 (2007).  And, it is the view adopted in the
Court’s opinion today, requiring “the absolute equality of all
citizens”  under  the  law.  Ante,  at  10  (internal  quotation