This Day in Legal History: 14th Amendment Ratified
On July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified—one of the most sweeping and hotly contested legal transformations in American history. Drafted during Reconstruction, its promise was bold: birthright citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law. In theory, it was the legal nail in the coffin for Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that declared Black people could never be citizens. In practice? A more complicated story.
The amendment aimed to redefine American citizenship in the wake of emancipation—but its language proved a double-edged sword. While Section 1 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights litigation, it was also the platform for corporate personhood and Lochner-era judicial activism. The same equal protection clause used to dismantle segregation in Brown v. Board (1954) was first deployed to protect railroad companies from state taxes. So the question isn’t whether the Fourteenth Amendment mattered—it’s whether it served the people it was meant to protect.
Southern states ratified the amendment under duress, often as a condition for rejoining the Union. The Supreme Court, for decades, narrowed its reach, refusing to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states and sidestepping racial injustice entirely. Only in the 20th century—through selective incorporation and the civil rights movement—did its full potential begin to manifest.
Today, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a constitutional battleground: cited in cases on abortion, marriage equality, affirmative action, and beyond. But the fight over its meaning is far from settled. July 9 isn't just a date on the calendar—it's a reminder that even the most powerful legal language is hostage to interpretation, and that equality under the law has always been a work in progress.
Retired NBA star Charles Oakley is seeking sanctions against Madison Square Garden (MSG) and Randy Mastro, a top NYC official and MSG attorney, alleging they made false statements in a long-running legal battle over Oakley's 2017 ejection from a Knicks game. In a recent court filing, Oakley accused Mastro of repeatedly lying to the court about MSG owner James Dolan’s involvement, despite Dolan admitting under oath that he played a role. Oakley wants the judge to award attorney fees, censure Mastro, and require him to attend an ethics class.
This move follows MSG’s own motion last month asking the court to sanction Oakley and his lawyers for allegedly promoting a "false narrative" and to dismiss the case. The dueling motions are part of an eight-year legal dispute that began after Oakley was forcibly removed from MSG. Oakley, a Knicks fan favorite from 1988–1998, has claimed excessive force was used during the incident and has recently amended his lawsuit to focus on assault and battery.
Ex-NBA player seeks sanctions against Madison Square Garden, lawyer Mastro | Reuters
Law school deans across Texas are pushing back against a proposal to eliminate the requirement that attorneys graduate from American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited schools. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, deans from eight of the state’s ten ABA-accredited law schools argue that scrapping the rule—which has been in place since 1983—would hinder graduates' ability to practice in other states and reduce transparency for students and consumers.
The court’s review of the ABA requirement follows a similar move by Florida, where justices cited the ABA’s paused diversity mandate and political activity as reasons for reconsideration. Critics of the proposal warn that removing ABA accreditation could isolate Texas law schools, make legal education less portable, and ultimately increase costs for students.
Notably, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law, Robert Chesney, did not join the group letter. Instead, he suggested the court explore alternative or supplementary accreditation pathways. Texas A&M's law dean, Robert Ahdieh, also withheld endorsement but emphasized the importance of maintaining national recognition for Texas law degrees. The state’s high court, composed entirely of Republican-elected judges, has not indicated when it will issue a decision.
Eliminating ABA accreditation for Texas law schools is flawed proposal, some deans say | Reuters
A U.S. district judge temporarily halted the bankruptcy sale of genetic testing company 23andMe, giving California three days to argue that the deal violates its genetic privacy law. California had earlier failed to convince a bankruptcy judge to block the $305 million sale to TTAM Research, a nonprofit founded by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.
The state contends that transferring genetic data to TTAM without explicit consumer consent breaches California’s Genetic Information Privacy Act. With roughly 1.8 million California residents among 23andMe’s 10 million users, the state argues the sale could lead to unauthorized data transfers.
Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh previously ruled that consumers could delete their data post-sale, minimizing potential harm. TTAM has promised to honor 23andMe’s existing privacy policies. A federal court hearing on whether to extend the pause is scheduled for Thursday. The bankruptcy follows declining demand and a major 2023 data breach at 23andMe.
Judge briefly pauses 23andMe bankruptcy sale amid California's appeal | Reuters
The IRS has agreed—at least for now—not to penalize churches for discussing political candidates or campaigns during religious services, provided that such speech is framed as a matter of faith. This move comes as part of a proposed consent decree intended to resolve a constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law barring 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from participating in political campaigns.
The settlement, filed in a Texas federal court, reinterprets the Johnson Amendment narrowly: religious speech about politics during worship services is not “political intervention” if it occurs through traditional, faith-based communication. The IRS now claims enforcing the Johnson Amendment against such speech could raise serious First Amendment concerns, especially if it treats politically silent religious organizations more favorably than outspoken ones.
Critics warn this reinterpretation risks turning churches into tax-sheltered political operations. Diane Yentel of the Council of Nonprofits argues it opens the door to tax-deductible donations for de facto political activity—effectively subsidized by taxpayers who may disagree.
While the lawsuit originally sought to strike down the Johnson Amendment entirely, this settlement attempts to sidestep the constitutional minefield through interpretation, not invalidation. But here's the legal paradox: the IRS is effectively rewriting statutory law without legislative input, relying on what it calls "constitutional avoidance." That raises real questions—can an executive agency unilaterally redefine the scope of a congressional statute to avoid a constitutional fight? Or is this a policy pivot masquerading as judicial restraint?
For now, the constitutional showdown is paused. But if this consent decree is approved, it will mark a major shift in the legal boundaries between church, state, and campaign finance—without any actual change to the law’s text. Whether that holds up under future scrutiny remains very much an open question.
IRS Says Religious Groups Can Discuss Politics During Services (1)
Share this post