Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
The question of how well the Constitution protects the civil liberties and rights of Americans is a long-standing and contentious one. Most individual rights are set out in the Bill of Rights of 1791 rather than the original document, and not all rights are equally secure or inherent. Much depends on how the Supreme Court interprets them. Many groups, including people with disabilities, children, and LGBTQ+ Americans, lack explicit constitutional protection. Modern human rights charters also tend to omit social rights like education, healthcare, and housing. As a result, constitutional rights in the U.S. can feel inconsistent, selective, and shaped by the time in which they were created, with many groups relying instead on federal or state laws. The First Amendment offers a useful case study: in many U.S. National Parks, signs mark certain areas as “First Amendment areas,” reflecting the complex mix of protection and control around free speech. While nearly all viewpoints, no matter how unusual or morally debatable, should be protected, speech that incites illegal acts or disrupts public order can be restricted and punished.
The fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, Jan 2026 by ICE agents and the quick reaction by Trump administration officials to declare the agent a hero and Ms. Good a villain — put a new focus on civil rights and the use of paramilitary force on US streets.
Immediately upon returning to office, the Trump administration advanced sweeping changes to immigration policy, unprecedented in their breadth and reach. These changes have made the United States more hostile to unauthorized immigrants while also altering how the government treats immigration and immigrants of all legal statuses and the communities in which they live.
Most visibly, Trump has militarised immigration enforcement: Scenes of troops and masked federal agents roaming U.S. streets, lobbing tear gas and in some cases violently—and even fatally—subduing individuals, have garnered global attention and profoundly changed how many residents go about their daily lives. Among other changes, some U.S. citizens now feel compelled to carry identification with them at all times.
The administration has leaned heavily on executive action rather than seeking legislative change in Congress. As of January 7, Trump had signed 38 executive orders related to immigration, accounting for nearly 17 per cent of the 225 total orders signed so far during his first year, which is more than the 220 executive orders signed during his entire first term.
Rights Protected by the Bill of Rights
Rights Protected by the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has formed the basis of many Supreme Court cases. It is entrenched but it is also unclear- this has resulted in multiple debates and disagreements over not only its meaning by the extent to which the court should or shouldn't interpret its meaning.
Rights Protected By Further Amendments
Rights protected by Supreme Court rulings
Rights protected by Supreme Court rulings
We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.
In 1907 Chief Justice Hughes
While all Supreme Court cases have to be based in the Constitution, some rulings have been particularly controversial because the Court has been accused of `finding' rights that are not there.
·
The effectiveness of the Supreme Court in protecting rights
The effectiveness of the Supreme Court in protecting rights
How much power does the Supreme Court have to protect civil liberties?
At first sight the court appears to be extremely powerful as a result of the entrenched Constitution and its power of judicial review and the many rights placed in the Constitution as well as their vagueness which allows the Court to interpret the new rights as well as enforce old ones
However, the Supreme Court can also be seen as very be constrained — for example,
By constitutional amendments that overturn its rulings (although this is rare).
They have no power to enforce their decisions -In addition in the Brown v Board case, their landmark ruling was ignored, with states failing to desegregate until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
They are bound by precedent- stare decisis
They have limited resources and can hear very few cases.
They are not proactive and can only hear cases which come to them
· How much agreement is there in the court about civil liberties?
Justices disagree about states right and individual rights. They may be unwilling to push their view of individual right in a manner which inhibits state's rights. In Plessy v Ferguson in 1896, the Supreme Court ruled that separate facilities did not break the Constitution (later interpreted as separate but equal). The Shelby ruling of 2010 could be seen as a failure to protect racial minority rights, a view taken by the four justices in the minority on the court,while the majority saw it as a decision which protected state's rights.
· The court does not share the same ideology when applying the law.
There is a difference between rights (as a moral imperative or belief) and constitutional rights. It is possible to argue that both Roe and Obergefell uphold rights but not constitutional rights, because gay marriage and abortion are in no way mentioned in the constitution- therefore if a right is not in the constitution it is not the role of the court to put it there.
Liberals argue gay rights and abortion are constitutional rights. Conservative claim that these are not in the constituion and making them right may infringe religious rights. Conservatives claim that the Second Amendment gives an individual a right to a gun; liberals argue this is not based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, who saw the right to bear arms essentially as a state right to organise a militia
In Bostock v Clayton 2020 LGBT Rights. The Supreme Court had to balance the 1st Amendment right of religious freedom and the 14th Amendment ' Equal Protection' right.'
Transgender Rights
Transgender Rights
Transgender Athlete Bans (January 2026): On January 13, 2026, the Court heard oral arguments for two landmark cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (Idaho). These cases examine whether state laws barring transgender girls from female sports teams violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. Conservative justices appeared inclined to uphold the bans, while liberal justices suggested narrower rulings that consider individual medical histories, such as those of students who did not go through male puberty.
Gender-Affirming Care (June 2025): In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court issued a 6-3 ruling on June 18, 2025, upholding a Tennessee law that bans certain medical treatments, like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender minors. The Court ruled the law did not require "heightened scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause, deferring such policy decisions to state legislatures.
School Bathrooms (September 2025): In a South Carolina case, the Court allowed a transgender boy to continue using the boys' bathroom at his high school while a challenge to a state restrictive law proceeds. This was not a final ruling on the merits but a refusal to block a lower court's injunction.
Passport Sex Markers (November 2025): On November 6, 2025, the Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to stop issuing passports with gender identity markings other than a person's sex at birth.
Military Service (May 2025): The Court allowed the administration to begin enforcing a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military while legal challenges continue.
First Amendment rights: Schenck v UnitedStates (1919)
First Amendment rights: Schenck v UnitedStates (1919)
In 1919, a notable case known as Schenck v United States saw two socialists convicted for distributing leaflets that encouraged people to disobey the draft in a peaceful manner. The Supreme Court, using the 'clear and present danger test,' ruled that speech not protected by the First Amendment includes that which could create an imminent danger of harm that Congress or another authority could prevent. Justice Holmes argued that the leaflets had the potential to disrupt the conscription process, likening them to falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
First Amendment rights: Morse v Frederick(2007)
First Amendment rights: Morse v Frederick(2007)
The case involved an Alaskan high school student who displayed a banner with the message 'BONG HiTS 4 JESUS' at a school-supervised event during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. The student was suspended by the principal for allegedly promoting illegal drug use. The student later appealed the suspension, arguing that his freedom of expression had been infringed. However, the court ruled in favor of the school, stating that schools have the authority to regulate speech, especially when it interferes with the educational mission or jeopardizes student safety. If the banner had not been displayed at a school event or contradicted the school's anti-drug policies, the outcome might have been different.
How well does the US Constitution protect individual rights?
How well does the US Constitution protect individual rights?
Key rights, such as free speech, fair trial, and newly discovered rights like equal protection and protection against cruel and unusual punishment, are protected in the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court judgments. These rights are difficult to overturn and can also be safeguarded through Acts of Congress, as seen with federal laws like the Equal Pay Act 1963 and the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. The USA has effectively adapted to evolving rights concepts through judicial review and remains comparable to other democracies. Despite debates, such as those surrounding abortion, the country navigates through subjective and contentious rights issues.
However
However
Many rights and groups are not directly protected by the Constitution, such as free and fair elections, and the rights of children and people with disabilities. The Supreme Court's interpretations are subjective and can change over time, leading to uncertainties and contradictions. Laws passed by Congress can theoretically be reversed and do not have the same level of protection as constitutional rights. The United States has unique aspects in its treatment of rights. Unlike European democracies, the death penalty is still allowed in the US and there are no entrenched rights for gun owners.
In 2026, the constitutionality of actions taken by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents remains a subject of intense legal debate and judicial review. While the Supreme Court has recently upheld certain aggressive tactics, several practices continue to face challenges in federal courts.
Current Legal Status of ICE Tactics
Racial Profiling & Stops: In September 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 emergency ruling (in Perdomo v. Noem) that lifted a lower court's ban on "roving" stops. This allows agents to stop individuals based on factors such as Hispanic appearance, speaking Spanish, or working in specific industries (like day labor).
Warrantless Arrests: While judicial warrants are generally required to enter private homes, ICE agents have statutory authority to interrogate and arrest individuals in public spaces without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion of illegal status.
Use of Force: The Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard continues to govern ICE operations. However, recent incidents—such as the January 2026 killing of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis—have sparked new lawsuits and legislative proposals to mandate body cameras and stricter de-escalation protocols. States like Minnesota have filed lawsuits (January 2026) alleging that current ICE "surges" are unconstitutional, violating the First and Tenth Amendments
Despite recent rulings, certain constitutional barriers still apply:
Private Property: Agents typically cannot enter a home or private workspace without a signed judicial warrant or consent.
Due Process: Individuals in the U.S., regardless of status, are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, although the scope of this process is currently being narrowed for those in expedited removal.
Protection for Citizens: ICE does not have the authority to permanently detain or deport U.S. citizens, though more than 170 citizens have reportedly been mistakenly detained in recent months
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse