research on bill of rights

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Why was the Bill of Rights added?

How was the bill of rights added to the u.s. constitution, does the bill of rights apply to the states.

• Does the Second Amendment allow owning guns for self-defense?
• Which U.S. Supreme Court justices think the Second Amendment recognizes the individual’s right to bear arms in self-defense?

Bill of Rights

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• U.S. History - The Bill of Rights
• Online Library of Liberty - 1791: US Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments) - with commentary
• UShistory.org - Historic Documents - Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
• Cornell University Law School - Legal Information Institute - Bill of Rights
• Khan Academy - The Bill of Rights
• Bill of Rights Institute - Bill of Rights of the United States of America (1791)
• The Free Speech Center - Bill of Rights
• Social Science LibreTexts - The Bill of Rights
• National Archives - Bill of Rights

What is the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution , adopted as a single unit in 1791. It spells out the rights of the people of the United States in relation to their government.

Three delegates to the Constitutional Convention , most prominently George Mason , did not sign the U.S. Constitution largely because it lacked a bill of rights. He was among those arguing against ratification of the document because of that omission, and several states ratified it only on the understanding that a bill of rights would be quickly added.

James Madison drew on the Magna Carta , the English Bill of Rights , and Virginia ’s Declaration of Rights , mainly written by George Mason , in drafting 19 amendments, which he submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. The House approved 17 of them and sent it to the U.S. Senate , which approved 12 of them on September 25. Ten were ratified by the states and became law on December 15, 1791.

How does the Bill of Rights protect individual rights?

The Bill of Rights says that the government cannot establish a particular religion and may not prohibit people or newspapers from expressing themselves. It also sets strict limits on the lengths that government may go to in enforcing laws . Finally, it protects unenumerated rights of the people.

Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. (One of the amendments that the U.S. Senate rejected would have applied those rights to state laws as well.) However, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) did forbid states to abridge the rights of any citizen without due process, and, beginning in the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court gradually applied most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments as well.

Bill of Rights , in the United States , the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution , which were adopted as a single unit on December 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.

The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the colonial struggle against king and Parliament , and a gradually broadening concept of equality among the American people. Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights, drafted chiefly by George Mason , was a notable forerunner. Besides being axioms of government, the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have binding legal force. Acts of Congress in conflict with them may be voided by the U.S. Supreme Court when the question of the constitutionality of such acts arises in litigation ( see judicial review ).

The Constitution in its main body forbids suspension of the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion (Article I, section 9); prohibits state or federal bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (I, 9, 10); requires that all crimes against the United States be tried by jury in the state where committed (III, 2); limits the definition, trial, and punishment of treason (III, 3); prohibits titles of nobility (I, 9) and religious tests for officeholding (VI); guarantees a republican form of government in every state (IV, 4); and assures each citizen the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states (IV, 2).

Popular dissatisfaction with the limited guarantees of the main body of the Constitution expressed in the state conventions called to ratify it led to demands and promises that the first Congress of the United States satisfied by submitting to the states 12 amendments. Ten were ratified. (The second of the 12 amendments, which required any change to the rate of compensation for congressional members to take effect only after the subsequent election in the House of Representatives , was ratified as the Twenty-seventh Amendment in 1992.) Individual states being subject to their own bills of rights, these amendments were limited to restraining the federal government. The Senate refused to submit James Madison ’s amendment (approved by the House of Representatives) protecting religious liberty, freedom of the press, and trial by jury against violation by the states.

Under the First Amendment , Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging freedom of speech or press or the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. Hostility to standing armies found expression in the Second Amendment ’s guarantee of the people’s right to bear arms and in the Third Amendment ’s prohibition of the involuntary quartering of soldiers in private houses.

The Fourth Amendment secures the people against unreasonable searches and seizures and forbids the issuance of warrants except upon probable cause and directed to specific persons and places. The Fifth Amendment requires grand jury indictment in prosecutions for major crimes and prohibits double jeopardy for a single offense. It provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself and forbids the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and the taking of private property for public use ( eminent domain ) without just compensation . By the Sixth Amendment , an accused person is to have a speedy public trial by jury, to be informed of the nature of the accusation, to be confronted with prosecution witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel . The Seventh Amendment formally established the right to trial by jury in civil cases. Excessive bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment are forbidden by the Eighth Amendment . The Ninth Amendment protects unenumerated residual rights of the people, and, by the Tenth , powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

After the American Civil War (1861–65), slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment , and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) declared that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens thereof. It forbids the states to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court used the due process clause to gradually incorporate, or apply against the states, most of the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights, which formerly had been understood to apply only against the federal government. Thus, the due process clause finally made effective the major portion of Madison’s unaccepted 1789 proposal.

Bill of Rights

Primary tabs.

• First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] (see explanation )
• Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] (see explanation )
• Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops (1791)] (see explanation )
• Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)] (see explanation )
• Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] (see explanation )
• Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] (see explanation )
• Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] (see explanation )
• Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] (see explanation )
• Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] (see explanation )
• Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People (1791)] (see explanation )

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 3

• The Articles of Confederation
• What was the Articles of Confederation?
• Shays's Rebellion

The Constitutional Convention

• The US Constitution
• The Federalist Papers

The Bill of Rights

• Social consequences of revolutionary ideals
• The presidency of George Washington
• Why was George Washington the first president?
• The presidency of John Adams
• Regional attitudes about slavery, 1754-1800
• Continuity and change in American society, 1754-1800
• Creating a nation

• The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.
• The Bill of Rights consists of guarantees of civil liberties and checks on state power; it was added in order to convince states to ratify the Constitution.

Ratifying the Constitution

• The executive branch would be headed by a president, who would be elected.
• The legislative branch would be composed of an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house—the House of Representatives. Representation in the House would be based on population—including counting enslaved men and women at the proportion of three to five for the purposes of representation and taxation. Each state would elect two representatives to the Senate.
• The judicial branch would consist of a Supreme Court and lower courts to interpret and apply the law.
• The First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with the freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly, and exercise of religion.
• The Second Amendment declares that properly constituted militias are a safeguard of liberty and that the right to bear arms will be protected.
• The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes—an extremely contentious issue that had led the colonists to war with Great Britain.
• The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures of private property.
• The Fifth , Sixth , Seventh , and Eighth Amendments establish a variety of guarantees relating to legal proceedings and criminal justice, including the right to a trial by jury; protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, being tried twice for the same offense; the right to due process; prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment; and the right to face one’s accuser, obtain legal counsel, and be informed of all criminal charges.
• The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the other eight amendments are not an exhaustive list of all of the rights and protections to which citizens are guaranteed, and the Tenth Amendment declares that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are to be left to the states. This reinforced the principle of federalism, or separation of powers, by ensuring that the federal government could not usurp rights and powers that were not explicitly authorized in the Constitution.

What do you think?

• For more, see Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Vintage Books, 2010).
• For more, see Jack N. Rakove, Declaring Rights: A Brief History with Documents (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Main Reading Room

Bill of Rights: Primary Documents in American History

Digital collections.

• Introduction
• Related Online Resources
• External Websites
• Print Resources

History, Humanities & Social Sciences : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-4pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).

The digital collections of the Library of Congress contain a wide variety of primary source materials associated with the Bill of Rights, including congressional publications, manuscripts, letters, and broadsides.

Provided below is a link to the home page for each relevant digital collection along with selected highlights.

Congressional Publications

• Congress.gov This collection contains congressional publications from the First Federal Congress, including debates, bills, laws, and journals.

Bill of Rights Debate References:

Debate related to the proposed amendments to the Constitution can be located in the Annals of Congress , on the following dates in 1789.

Note: The Senate met in secret at the time. The Senate did not open its doors to the public until 1795.

• June 8, 1789 (Introduced and debated in the House of Representatives, pages 440-68) James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives his proposed amendments to the Constitution, which would eventually become known as the Bill of Rights.
• July 21, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 685-91)
• July 28, 1789 (Reported in the House, page 699)
• August 3, 1789 (Reported in the House, page 700)
• August 13, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 730-44)
• August 14, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 745-57)
• August 15, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 757-78)
• August 17, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 778-85)
• August 18, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 785-92)
• August 19, 1789 (Debated in the House, page 795)
• August 20, 1789 (Debated in the House, page 795)
• August 21, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 795-802)
• August 22, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 803-08)
• August 24, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 808-09)
• September 2, 1789 (Debated in the Senate, pages 76-77)
• September 4, 1789 (Debated in the Senate, page 77)
• September 7, 1789 (Debated in the Senate, page 78)
• September 8, 1789 (Debated in the Senate, page 79)
• September 9, 1789 (Debated in the Senate, page 80)
• September 19, 1789 (Debated in the House, pages 938)
• September 21, 1789 (Debated in the House, page 939)
• September 24, 1789 (Agreed to in the House, page 948)
• September 25, 1789 (Agreed to in the Senate, page 90)

The appendix to the  Annals of Congress , First Congress, contains documents related to the ratification of the Bill of Rights by the various state legislatures.

• Ratification of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States by the States (PDF - 16.63 MB)

Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention

Selected highlight from this collection:

• The twelve amendments to the Constitution as passed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Printed in Providence, Rhode Island, 1789.

Search on the phrase " 1st-10th Amendments " in this collection to locate additional documents related to the Bill of Rights.

George Washington Papers

Selected highlights from this collection:

• George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, April 28, 1788. In this letter Washington discussed the prospects for ratification of the Constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights.
• George Washington's first inaugural address, April 30, 1789. Washington's first inaugural address called for constitutional amendments to satisfy citizens' demands for a Bill of Rights.

Historic Newspapers

A selection of articles from this collection includes:

• Gazette of the United-States. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]), 13 June 1789. A copy of James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights was published in the Gazette of the United-States on June 13, 1789.
• Gazette of the United-States. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]), 03 Oct. 1789. A copy of the proposed Bill of Rights with twelve articles as submitted to the states was published in the Gazette of the United-States on October 3, 1789.

James Madison Papers

• James Madison. Notes for Speech on Constitutional Amendments. June 8, 1789. Madison used these notes for his speech on June 8, 1789. [ Transcription ]
• James Madison to George Washington, December 5, 1789. In this letter Madison discussed the political situation in the state of Virginia as it related to the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Printed Ephemera

• The seventeen proposed amendments to the Constitution passed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789. These seventeen amendments were subsequently reduced to the twelve amendments passed by Congress, which were sent to the states on September 25, 1789.
• A bill of rights as provided in the ten original amendments to the constitution of the United States in force December 15, 1791. [n. p. 195-].

Rare Book Selections

Selected highlight from this collection:

• Bill of rights, liberty of conscience, trial by jury, no excise, no poll tax, no standing army in peace without limitation, no whipping militia, nor marching them out of the state without consent of the general assembly, no direct taxation without...
• Congress of the United States, in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, the 27th of July 1789, Mr. Vining, from the Committee of Eleven, to whom it was referred to take the subject of amendments to the Constitution of the United States...
• Congress of the United States, in the House of Representatives, Monday, 24th August 1789 : resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives ... that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments....
• The proposed Bill of Rights with twelve articles as submitted to the states in 1789. Printed by Thomas Greenleaf, [1789?].

Thomas Jefferson Papers

• Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787 Jefferson received a copy of the Constitution in November, 1787, while living in France. Beginning on the second page of this letter, Jefferson expressed his opinions on the new Constitution, including his belief that a Bill of Rights was needed. [ Transcription ]
• Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, March 15, 1789 Jefferson replied to Madison's letter of October 17, 1788, about the need for a Bill of Rights.
• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Related Online Resources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 10:58 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/bill-of-rights

Bill of Rights: The 1st Ten Amendments

What is the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights is one of the three founding documents . It was strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason as well as English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

PDF: Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights Amendments

First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Who Wrote the Bill of Rights

The first ten amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments as a solution to limit government power and protect individual liberties through the Constitution. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens’ right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution?

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the Constitution lacked limits on government power. Federalists  advocated for a strong national government. They believed the people and states automatically kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists wanted power to remain with state and local governments and favored a bill of rights to safeguard individual liberty. 

Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, altered the Constitution’s text where he thought appropriate. However, several representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected, saying that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution. Therefore, Madison’s changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.

When was the Bill of Rights Ratified

The House approved 17 amendments. Of these, the Senate approved 12, which were sent to the states for approval in August 1789. Ten amendments were approved (or ratified). Virginia’s legislature was the final state legislature to ratify the amendments, approving them on December 15, 1791.

Related Resources

What Is the Significance of the Free Exercise Clause?

One of America's most cherished freedoms is the free exercise of religion. In a nation where people of many faiths live side-by-side, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause protects individuals from government interference in the practice of their faith. The government cannot target laws at specific religious practices or place undue burdens on its citizens' worship. This lesson explores the free exercise clause and the many questions that arise from its enforcement.

The Bill of Rights and Free Speech

Focuses on First Amendment protection of free speech, free assembly, and petition of government. The unit also examines the evolution of the definitions of protected expression in speech, petition, assembly, art, and demonstration.

The Bill of Rights and Guns

Explores the origins of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Also explores relevant Supreme Court decisions and engages students in the current debate over gun regulation.

Liberty and Security in Modern Times

What is the proper balance between liberty and security? Using primary source documents, writing assignments, discussion prompts and other activities, students will explore this difficult question. This curriculum examines the balance between liberty and security over the last 60 years.

The Bill of Rights and Property

Spotlights safeguards to property in the Bill of Rights, explores various types of property, and examines the concepts of takings, just compensation, and eminent domain.

Gideon v. Wainwright | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Does an individual have a right to a lawyer, regardless of the crime he or she is charged with? In 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering and petty larceny in Panama City, Florida. His request for a state-provided defense attorney was denied since Florida law only required doing so for capital offense cases. After Gideon was sentenced to 5 years in prison, he argued that Florida violated the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel. The Supreme Court heard Gideon’s case, in Gideon v. Wainwright, and ruled in a 9-0 decision that the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of an attorney applies to states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment through incorporation.

Due Process of Law

The principle of due process of law means that the government must follow duly-enacted laws when it seeks to restrict or deny fundamental rights, including a person’s rights to life, liberty, or property. In essence, it means that the government must treat its citizens fairly, following laws and established procedures in everything it does. It is the commitment to this principle that makes the United States, as John Adams once noted, “a government of laws, and not of men.”

The Bill of Rights and Due Process

Covers search and seizure, rights of the accused, due process of law, jury trials, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

The Bill of Rights and Liberty

Explores the unenumerated rights reserved to the people with reference to the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, with a focus on rights including travel, political affiliation, and privacy. Probes the ways the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments have been used to claim rights to personal liberty.

State and Local Government

From the Founding generation to the present day, controversy continues regarding the proper division of power between state and national government. What the Founders did not find debatable was the wisdom of dividing power both among and within governments. In short, they considered the federal system to be a critical part of the American constitutional order.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

8 Things You Should Know About the Bill of Rights

By: History.com Staff

Updated: September 1, 2018 | Original: December 10, 2015

Why was the Bill of Rights tacked onto the Constitution just three years after its ratification in June 1788? Essentially, anti-Federalist delegates objected to the proposed draft, arguing that it provided a framework for a new centralized government but failed to safeguard individual liberties and states’ rights. They finally agreed to ratify the Constitution on the condition that Congress amend the document to include these protections.

While drafting the Bill of Rights, James Madison drew heavily on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason and ratified shortly before the Constitution of Virginia in June 1776. Considered the first constitutional protection of individual rights, it also provided a blueprint for the U.S. Declaration of Independence and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Since America’s founding fathers had just spent years fighting for independence from Britain, it might seem ironic that an English law—the Bill of Rights of 1689—served as another inspiration for the U.S. Bill of Rights. The two documents share a number of guarantees, including the right to petition and protection again “cruel and unusual punishments.”

James Madison was an unlikely author of the proposed amendments that eventually became the Bill of Rights. He initially argued that the Constitution itself sufficiently restricted the federal government and that Americans inherently enjoyed natural rights even in the absence of laws ensuring them. Madison’s mentor Thomas Jefferson, who was then serving as ambassador to France, helped convince him of their necessity in 1789.

Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924.

The original Bill of Rights included 12 amendments, but only 10 became law in 1791. One of the omitted articles, which deals with the size of electoral districts, has yet to be ratified. The other, which prohibits pay raises for Congress members until the next election takes place, was ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment.

George Washington commissioned 14 handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights—one for each of the original 13 colonies and one for Congress. Twelve of the originals survive to this day. North Carolina’s copy disappeared during the Civil War when a Union soldier took it home as a souvenir; it resurfaced in 2003 thanks to the efforts of an undercover FBI agent.

One hundred fifty years after the Bill of Rights became law, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called on the American people to observe December 15 as Bill of Rights Day. Just days after he made his speech, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and celebrations were cancelled. Though relatively obscure, it remains a federal holiday.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, module 5: the bill of rights.

Shortly after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding generation added the Bill of Rights—the Constitution’s first 10 amendments. These amendments guarantee many of our most cherished liberties, including the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to a jury trial. After the Constitutional Convention, the absence of a bill of rights emerged as a key part of the debates over ratification. Anti-Federalists—those who opposed the Constitution —pointed to the missing bill of rights as a fatal flaw in the new document. Several states ratified the Constitution with an understanding that amendments would be promptly added by the new government. This module will explore the origins of the Bill of Rights, explain its importance to the debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and walk through the specific rights enshrined in each of the first 10 amendments.

Download all materials for this module as a PDF

Learning Objectifies

• Define the Bill of Rights and explain why the Founding generation added it to the Constitution.
• Identify the factors influencing the Founding generation’s move to add a bill of rights to the new Constitution.
• Describe the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
• Describe the role that the battle over ratification (and the views of the Anti-Federalists) played in creating a Bill of Rights.
• Describe how the 14th Amendment and later Supreme Court decisions transformed the Bill of Rights through the process of incorporation.

5.1 Activity: Dissenters at the Constitutional Convention

• Student Instructions
• Teacher Notes

Purpose Despite Benjamin Franklin’s closing speech calling for all delegates to unite in signing the new Constitution, the dissenters refused to sign it on September 17, 1787—the final day of the Constitutional Convention. They worried that the delegates had created a new national government with too much power. As part of this decision, they criticized the delegates for leaving out a bill of rights. This act of dissent was central to the later framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Think back to our earlier discussions about the Constitutional Convention in light of these objections. Do you think that you would have joined George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph in dissenting?

Process Think about the significance of the U.S. Constitution. Share the first idea or part of the Constitution that comes to mind.

Then, look at the Visual Info Brief: Three Delegates image of three delegates to the Constitutional Convention taken at the National Constitution Center’s Signers’ Hall Exhibit.

Answer the following questions and be prepared to engage in a classroom discussion:

• How would you describe the delegates’ postures and stances?
• What do you think their body language indicates about what they’re thinking and feeling? 
• Why do you think they may feel this way at the end of the Constitutional Convention? 
• These are statues of George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph. Today, we refer to them as the “Dissenters.” What does dissent mean to you?

Share the Visual Info Brief: Three Delegates image of three delegates to the Constitutional Convention taken at the National Constitution Center’s Signers’ Hall Exhibit. 

Record student thoughts about the Constitution on the board. After a few minutes, recognize how many ideas, concepts, or rights are found in the Bill of Rights.

Ask students if they recognize these delegates (George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph). If not, review delegate information in the  Info Brief: Meet the Dissenters document. Share with the class and emphasize that these delegates are known as the “Dissenters.” Give some information about who they were, what states they represented, and their views of the Constitution. 

Activity Synthesis Quickly show the students the listing of rights in the Bill of Rights (short form ideas listing). Ask the students the following questions:

• Do you agree or disagree with the Dissenters’ critique of the Constitution—that it should have included a bill of rights?
• Why do you think that the delegates left a bill of rights out of the Constitution? 
• Following Primary Source: Dissenters at the Constitutional Convention at the Convention, would you have joined the Dissenters? Would you have refused to sign the Constitution? Why, or why not?

Activity Extension (optional) Have students choose one of the Dissenters and learn more about him. Ask students to reflect on another moment when dissent has played an important role in American history, or in their own life.

5.1 Visual Info Brief: Three Delegates

5.1 info brief: meet the dissenters, 5.1 primary source: dissenters at the constitutional convention, 5.2 video activity: the bill of rights.

Purpose The First Congress formally approved the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789, and sent it to the states for ratification. On December 15, 1791—so, over two years later—the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified. In this activity, you will learn about the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the story behind its creation, including the key role played by the Dissenters at the Constitutional Convention. 

Process Watch the following video about the Bill of Rights.

Then, complete the Video Reflection: The Bill of Rights worksheet.

Identify any areas that are unclear to you or where you would like further explanation. Be prepared to discuss your answers in a group and to ask your teacher any remaining questions.

Launch Give students time to watch the video and answer the questions. 

Activity Synthesis Have students share their responses in small groups and then discuss as a class.

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the Bill of Rights, ask the following question:

• What important historical events are needed to better understand the amendments in the Bill of Rights?

5.2 Video Reflection: The Bill of Rights

5.3 activity: the origin of the bill of rights.

Purpose Before there was a national bill of rights, some of the states had drafted their own declarations of rights. In this activity, you will examine one of the most influential documents in the Founding era– the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Through studying the core rights enshrined in this historic document, you will highlight the similarities and differences between the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights. 

Process Read the following documents:

• Info Brief: Key Anti-Federalists
• Primary Source and Activity Guide: Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights 

Identify similarities and differences between the content of the documents.

Record the progression of ideas in the Primary Source and Activity Guide: Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights worksheet.

Launch The goal is for the students to examine the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the core rights it protected and how these ideas manifested in the Bill of Rights. Ask students what is similar about the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights and what is different between the two documents. Students can match up the text in the Virginia Declaration of Rights with the Bill of Rights and build a flashcard view (physically or digitally) of the Bill of Rights. One side is labeled “How it started” (Virginia Declaration of Rights) and the other side is “How it’s going” (Bill of Rights).

The Primary Source and Activity Guide: Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights worksheet will allow students to move sections of the Virginia Declaration of Rights to align with the Bill of Rights. Students can also find key sources from the Writing Rights interactive to add to the document.

Activity Synthesis As a summary activity, play a game with students by reading a section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights out loud. Then have students  buzz in to see who is first to answer the correct amendment connection in the Bill of Rights. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the origins of the Bill of Rights, encourage them to explore the Writing Rights interactive to examine other sources influencing the framing of the Bill of Rights. Ask them to choose another state’s bill of rights and use the Writing Rights Interactive to analyze its connection to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.  

5.3 Info Brief: The Anti-Federalists

5.3 primary source and activity guide: virginia declaration of rights and the bill of rights, 5.4 activity: madison’s reluctance to add a bill of rights.

Purpose This activity aims to help students understand a surprising fact: The framers did not include a bill of rights in the original Constitution. Furthermore, some key founders even argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary and, possibly, dangerous. This activity will re-introduce students to two key founders, James Madison and James Wilson, and explore their critique of a federal bill of rights. 

Process In your group, brainstorm reasons why the delegates to the Constitutional Convention might have left out a bill of rights. 

Then, brainstorm reasons why members of the Founding generation may have believed that it was not necessary to include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Why could it have been dangerous?

Read the three documents below and list key arguments for and against adding a bill of rights. Date each argument to show the transition from opposition to support.

• Primary Source: State House Yard Speech by Wilson
• Primary Source: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Correspondence on a Bill of Rights (1787-89) 
• Primary Source: James Madison’s Speech in Support of Amendments (1789) (where he introduces his draft of the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives)

Launch Review the delegates that were at the Constitutional Convention, especially James Madison and James Wilson. Assign students to groups to complete the activity.

Activity Synthesis Ask the following questions and follow up as necessary on students’ findings:

• What were James Wilson’s key arguments against a bill of rights?
• Why was Madison reluctant to include a bill of rights at the outset? 
• What were Jefferson’s responses to Madison’s arguments? What counter arguments might he have found persuasive?
• What arguments did Madison give to Congress for eventually adopting a bill of rights?

Activity Extension (optional) Encourage students to reference their ratification timeline from Module 4 and look for any turning point connections.

Inform students that following the pivotal Massachusetts ratification convention, many leading Federalists compromised with their opponents and agreed to add new amendments to the Constitution once it was ratified. This cleared the way for the Bill of Rights. Madison was influenced by his friend, Thomas Jefferson, who was serving America in Paris and who strongly supported a bill of rights.

5.4 Primary Source: State House Yard Speech by Wilson

5.4 primary source: thomas jefferson and james madison, correspondence on a bill of rights (1787-89), 5.4 primary source: james madison’s speech in support of amendments (1789), 5.5 activity: big ideas of the bill of rights.

Purpose In this activity, you will explore the big ideas for each of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. 

Process Read the text of your assigned amendment and complete the task in the Activity Guide: Big Ideas of the Bill of Rights document. 

Launch Assign each student/group one of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

Students are encouraged to research information on the National Constitution Center website—especially the Interactive Constitution Common Interpretation essay on their assigned amendment. 

Activity Synthesis Have students/groups share their big ideas and visual representation with the class. This may be shared digitally or image collages may be added around the room for a gallery or story walk.

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, ask them to read about the Matters of Debate essays for that amendment on The Constitution webpage.

5.5 Activity Guide: Big Ideas of the Bill of Rights

5.6 summary activity: incorporation.

Purpose As ratified, the Bill of Rights only applied to abuses by the national government—not the states. However, following the ratification of the 14th Amendment and later decisions by the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights became a charter of national freedom—applying key Bill of Rights protections (like free speech and religious liberty) to abuses by all levels of government: national, state, and local. This process is known as incorporation. Today, virtually all of the key protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights apply with equal vigor against all levels of government.

In this activity, you will explore the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and study the process of incorporation.

Process Read and interpret the language from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment then review the Info Brief: Incorporation . 

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Then, read and take notes on the following essays:

• Activity Guide: Incorporation Essay by Akhil Amar and Note Catcher 
• Activity Guide: Due Process Clause Essay by Nathan S. Chapman and Kenji Yoshino and Note Catcher
• Activity Guide: Due Process Clause Essay by Chapman and Yoshino and Note Catcher

After you have finished reading these essays, identify the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Describe how the 14th Amendment transformed the Bill of Rights.

Record your answers and be prepared to engage in classroom discussion.

Launch Ask the class to list the most important Supreme Court cases of the last century. Take the list and circle each one that is a 14th Amendment case.  

If students are having trouble naming cases, read from the Supreme Court case list and see if they recognize any names. 

• Reynolds v. United States (1879)
• Schenck v. United States (1919)
• Gitlow v. New York (1925)
• Olmstead v. United States (1928)
• West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
• McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
• Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
• DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• Katz v. United States (1967)
• Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
• New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case)
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
• Texas v. Johnson (1989)
• Carpenter v. United States (2018)
• Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
• Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)

Activity Synthesis Choose 2-3 cases to review as a group and ask if these cases involve the 14th Amendment or are solely about the Bill of Rights. Are these cases about the national government infringing on people’s fundamental rights found in the Bill of Rights or are they cases where the states are infringing on people’s rights? 

5.6 Info Brief: Incorporation

5.6 activity guide: incorporation essay by akhil amar and note catcher, 5.6 activity guide: due process clause essay by nathan s. chapman and kenji yoshino and note catcher, 5.6 activity guide: privileges or immunities clause essay by akhil amar and john c. harrison and note catcher, 5.7 test your knowledge.

Congratulations for completing the activities in this module! Now it’s time to apply what you have learned about the basic ideas and concepts covered.

Complete the questions in the following quiz to test your knowledge.

This activity will help students determine their overall understanding of module concepts. It is recommended that questions are completed electronically so immediate feedback is provided, but a downloadable copy of the questions (with answer key) is also available.

5.7 Interactive Knowledge Check: The Bill of Rights

5.7 printable knowledge check: the bill of rights, previous module, module 4: constitutional convention and ratification, next module, module 6: separation of powers and federalism.

When crafting the Constitution, one of the central concerns of the Founding generation was how best to control government power. With the new Constitution, the Framers looked to strike an important balance—creating a new national government that was more powerful than the one that came before it while still protecting the American people’s most cherished liberties. They settled on a national government with defined but limited powers. Instead of placing authority in the hands of a single person (like a king), a small group of people (like an aristocracy), or eve...

Go to the Next Module

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

The Story of the Bill of Rights

• First Amendment
• Second Amendment
• Third Amendment
• Fourth Amendment
• Fifth Amendment
• Sixth Amendment
• Seventh Amendment
• Eighth Amendment
• Ninth Amendment
• Tenth Amendment

Download this video for classroom use.

The story about the struggle over the Bill of Rights is told in this documentary, which explains how these individual freedoms that often are taken for granted today were controversial among the founding fathers and how they were eventually ratified. Ten short videos address each of the amendments.

Awards & Honors

• Gold Plaque from Chicago International Film Festival

Related Resources

• Handout: Our Heritage of Liberty: The Bill of Rights
• Game: Annenberg Classroom’s That’s Your Right

Research Participant Bill of Rights/Experimental Subjects Bill of Rights

California law, requires that any individual (or Legally Authorized Representative) asked to participate in a research study defined as a "medical experiment" under California Health and Safety Code, section 24174 , must receive a copy of the Research Participant Bill of Rights (also known as the "Experimental Subject’s Bill of Rights") in a language in which the individual is fluent.

A "medical experiment" includes one or more of the following procedures:

• The severance or penetration or damaging of tissues of a human subject or the use of a drug or device, electromagnetic radiation, heat or cold, or a biological substance or organism, in or upon a human subject in the practice or research of medicine in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject.
• The investigational use of a drug or device as provided in Sections 111590 and 111595.
• Withholding medical treatment from a human subject for any purpose other than maintenance or improvement of the health of the subject.

As the Bill of Rights provides a useful summary of the rights of potential participants in the consent conference as well as in the research. The best practice is to provide it (for relevant protocols) in advance of reviewing the content of the consent form.

That the Bill of Rights was provided to a potential participant for the consent conference (for relevant protocols) should be documented in the research files.

The Research Study Participants' Bill of Rights (pdf) has been translated into the following languages:

• Braille - Please  call the OHRPP  to arrange for a paper copy
• Ampharic/Ethiopian
• Armenian (Eastern)
• Armenian (Western)
• Bosnian  (also use for Croatian and Serbian)
• Khmer (Cambodian)
• Chinese (Simplified)
• Chinese (Traditional)

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• Supplements
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

12 Points in a Patient's Bill of Rights

There are 12 key areas related to patient rights when accessing and receiving health care in the United States. They range from the right to privacy established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ( HIPAA ) to, with few exceptions , the right to refuse treatment.

This article discusses these patient rights and the foundation for them. It will help you to know what to expect when connecting with medical professionals and how to advocate for your own care, such as seeking a second opinion .

Right to Have Access to Care

Access to care means that you can secure the services you need in a timely fashion that will ensure the best possible health outcomes. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the U.S. says this access includes:

• Health insurance , removing the barrier to provider care and services
• Services , with an established primary care provider making it easier to get routine health screenings and prevention services like mammograms
• Timeliness , to ensure needed services occur without delay
• Workforce , meaning access depends on qualified and well-trained providers

The Right to Respect

The patient's right to respect, otherwise known as nondiscrimination, is the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Discrimination is not permitted on the basis of:

• Race, ethnicity, or national origin
• Sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression
• Veteran or military status
• Any other basis prohibited by federal, state, or local law

This also means that you have the right to be treated humanely and never be subjected to degrading treatment by any ​healthcare professional.

The Right to Emergency Treatment

Healthcare professionals have a responsibility to provide medical treatment to any person with an emergency medical condition. Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment at any emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay.

According to  EMTALA  or the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, an emergency is defined as any medical condition with acute (sudden) symptoms and severity (including pain) that, without care, could reasonably be expected to:

• Place the health of an individual or fetus in jeopardy
• Cause serious impairment in bodily function
• Cause serious dysfunction of bodily organs

The Right of Informed Consent

The most important right that a patient has is the right of informed consent. You should only consent to medical treatment if you have sufficient information about the diagnosis and all treatment options available in terms you can understand.

A healthcare provider must make you aware of what their plans or procedures are before they begin them. Don't hesitate to ask questions or seek more information.

The Right to Refuse Treatment

You have the right to self-determination and can refuse medical treatment, with few exceptions such as certain mental health crises . 

From an ethical perspective, healthcare providers have the responsibility or duty to protect the life and health of a patient. Ultimately, the patient has the final decision regarding the medical treatment they receive, even when it means they choose to decline such treatment.

The Right to Choose Providers

Physicians and hospitals often refer patients to specialists, home health care, long-term facilities or other healthcare professionals for further care outside of their expertise or ability to provide continuity of care. 

These decisions can sometimes violate the right to choose the provider of your choice. All people have the right to choose the provider who renders healthcare services to them.

The Right to Privacy

One of the most basic rights that a patient has is the right to privacy. Patients have the right to decide to whom, when, and to what extent their private individually identifiable health information is disclosed.  

Legal protections extend to information about but not limited to:

• Medical diagnosis
• Treatment plans
• Prescriptions
• Health insurance information
• Genetic information
• Clinical research records
• Mental health records

For patients, a lack of privacy could lead to personal embarrassment, public humiliation, and discrimination.

Right to Form Advance Directives

You have the right to decide what you want to happen if you face life-threatening injury or illness and cannot speak on your own behalf. This self-determination can be achieved through advance directive planning.

Advance directives include:

• A living will, to communicate your wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), artificial ventilation, feeding tubes, and other measures
• Durable power of attorney for health care , which identifies someone you've chosen to make decisions for you if you cannot make them yourself

Right to Pain Management

Jose Luis Pelaez Inc / Getty Images

Healthcare providers have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering, as affirmed by the American Medical Association and other global healthcare organizations. Pain management is viewed by many professionals as a human right, and alleviating chronic pain is seen as an ethical and legal obligation.

There are exceptions, especially with concerns over the opioid crisis. Access to pain management does not necessarily mean you can demand a specific type of drug or therapy. Patient rights do have limits and healthcare providers have rights, too.

Right to Request or Refuse Transfer of Care

You may find that you want to be treated at a different hospital or by a different provider; you also may insist on refusing such a transfer when a provider is the one planning the transfer of care.

The right to transfer means that the first provider will make information available about the necessity or risks involved with any change, and honor the decision of a patient requesting (or disputing) transfer of care.

If a provider is transferring care, they are obligated to ensure continuity of care with a new provider and facility.

The Right to Appeal

You have the right to a fair review or appeal of any complaint against physicians, hospitals, or any other healthcare provider. The right to appeal includes complaints regarding:

• Adequacy of treatment
• Actions of healthcare personnel
• Operating hours
• Billing and payment issues

You also have the right to ask about any potential conflicts of interest involving a healthcare provider, such as those that may affect a facility where you receive a procedure or a prescribed medication.

Patient Responsibilities

Patients have a number of responsibilities to the medical office including active participation in their treatment plan, timely resolution of their financial obligation and respectful interaction with all staff.

People receiving medical care have rights that protect their autonomy and decision making, their health records, and their relationships with healthcare providers.

Some of these rights are established by law, while others are determined by medical organizations and their members on the basis of ethics and morality.

Don't hesitate to speak up for yourself or ask questions about your rights. A patient advocate also can help you with concerns about your patient rights. Keep in mind that as a patient, you also have responsibilities as a partner in your health care.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Access to Care .

American Medical Association. Patient rights .

American College of Emergency Physicians. EMTALA fact sheet .

American Medical Association. Informed consent .

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Health information privacy .

National Institute on Aging. Preparing a Living Will .

National Institute on Aging. Choosing a Health Care Proxy .

Brennan F, Lohman D, Gwyther L. Access to Pain Management as a Human Right. Am J Public Health . 2019 Jan;109(1):61-65. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304743.

Jukić M, Puljak L. Legal and Ethical Aspects of Pain Management . Acta Med Acad . 2018 May;47(1):18-26. doi: 10.5644/ama2006-124.211. 

American Academy of Family Physicians. Consultations, Referrals, and Transfers of Care.

By Joy Hicks Joy B. Hicks, PhD, MBA, is an expert on the health insurance industry with over 15 years of experience in patient financial services.

Tim Walz Signed Law Protecting Pedophiles from Discrimination?

The claim was shared by the republican national committee's official research account on x., published aug. 8, 2024.

About this rating

The bill in question was an amendment to the state's civil rights law that edited the definition of "sexual orientation" to remove the inclusion of identities "not traditionally associated with one’s biological male or female traits." Several legal scholars noted that the law did not protect pedophiles from discrimination.

On Aug. 6, 2024, RNC Research , an account operated by the Republican National Committee, posted a claim to X alleging that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris' vice-presidential running mate, signed a bill into law that specifically protected pedophiles from discrimination. The claim quickly spread , and it was picked up by conservative news outlets like the Daily Wire .

The claim was not new. The piece of legislation in question, H.F. 1655 , was an amendment to a larger bill called the Take Pride Act , which enshrined the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in Minnesota's human rights law. It was passed in May 2023 and was criticized then on the same grounds.

However, when Snopes researched the amendment by using publicly available documentation from the Minnesota state legislature, we discovered that the claim was false. The bill was real, and Walz did sign it into law, but it did not protect pedophiles from discrimination. When the claim was shared on X, the context that would have made this clear was omitted.

What the Bill Actually Did

The Take Pride Act included provisions that outlawed discriminating against people based on "gender identity" and "sexual orientation." In order for the law to be enforceable, the bill's authors included definitions of those two terms. For the purposes of this claim, only the definition of "sexual orientation" is relevant. This is how that definition read when Walz signed the Take Pride Act into law in May 2023:

Subd. 44.   Sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" means to whom someone is, or is perceived of as being, emotionally, physically, or sexually attracted to based on sex or gender identity. A person may be attracted to men, women, both, neither, or to people who are genderqueer, androgynous, or have other gender identities.

However, it took the state legislature time to create this definition, and the exact wording of the definition was edited significantly from its original text. Take, for instance, this previous version (emphasis ours):

Subd. 44. Sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment , or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness. "Sexual orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult .

The bill that the RNCResearch X account and other conservative commentators referred to was written by Rep. Leigh Finke , the first transgender person elected to the Minnesota Legislature. Finke's amendment changed the definition of sexual orientation to the following:

Subd. 44. Sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment.

Finke's amendment removed the last half of the definition, which included the line referring to "a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult."

Sexual orientation is defined based on people's attachment to people dependent on the sex of that person, not the age of that person. As such, the line about "a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult" was irrelevant to the definition. 

The Minnesota House Research Department created a summary of the amendment that concisely explained this point. That summary said the amendment "removes language from the existing definition of 'sexual orientation' that included having or being perceived as having an identity not traditionally associated with one's biological male or female traits."

No Protection for Pedophiles

In a previous fact-check on the same topic from PolitiFact , published in May 2023 when Walz signed the Take Pride Act, legal experts confirmed that the law would not protect pedophiles from discrimination in any way. 

"No court in the country has or would ever say that a law protecting people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation extends to protecting pedophilia," Brian Soucek, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, told PolitiFact.

Essentially, while the amendment in question removed a reference to "a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult," it did so in order to remove unnecessary text. Walz did sign the Take Pride Act into law, but had nothing to do with protecting pedophiles.

"About." LEIGH for 66a, https://www.leighformn.com/about. Accessed 8 Aug. 2024.

Davis, Mary. Minnesota Human Rights Act; Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Bill Summary, H.F. 1655, Minnesota House Research Department, 8 Mar. 2023, https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/bs/93/HF1655.pdf.

HF 1655 as Introduced - 93rd Legislature (2023 - 2024). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1655&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0. Accessed 8 Aug. 2024.

Sec. 363A.03 MN Statutes. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A.03. Accessed 8 Aug. 2024.

"The Judiciary and Public Safety Bill Advances Civil Rights." MN Department of Human Rights, https://mn.gov/mdhr/news-community/newsroom/civilrightsupdates.jsp?id=1061-579395.

Tim Walz Signed Bill Stripping Anti-Pedophile Language From Minnesota's Human Rights Act. 7 Aug. 2024, https://www.dailywire.com/news/tim-walz-signed-bill-stripping-anti-pedophile-language-from-minnesotas-human-rights-act.

Tuquero, Loreben. "Minnesota Bill Won't Shield Child Sex Offenders." @politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/may/03/tweets/minnesota-bill-does-not-create-a-protected-class-f/. Accessed 8 Aug. 2024.

By Jack Izzo

Jack Izzo is a Chicago-based journalist and two-time "Jeopardy!" alumnus.

Article Tags

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

Restoring the Voting Rights Act

The 59th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act underscores the urgent need to protect the freedom to vote, especially for people of color. 

• Voting Reform
• Voter Suppression

Fifty-nine years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, undoing the barriers of the Jim Crow era and opening up important voting opportunities for communities of color. But in the last decade, the Supreme Court has relentlessly weakened this landmark achievement of the civil rights movement. In 2021, a solution that would restore the Voting Rights Act to full force was introduced in Congress: the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act . That legislation, named for the late civil rights icon, was passed by the House but did not reach the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Had it become law, safeguards for minority voters would be in far better shape today.

The heart of the Voting Rights Act was “preclearance,” which required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval for any changes to voting policies. In 2013, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder effectively eliminated it, and in doing so, emboldened states to adopt racially discriminatory policies. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act would have revived preclearance, barring racially discriminatory voting laws and other barriers that make it harder for people of color to participate in our democracy before they were put in place. Discriminatory congressional district maps, like those drawn by several jurisdictions following the 2020 census, would have been blocked.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act would have also gone beyond restoring geographic preclearance and covered certain changes long known to have discriminatory effects, such as inadequately providing multilingual voting materials and reducing polling locations. And standardized public notice and transparency requirements would have been implemented — providing additional protections against any changes to voting practices that, intentionally or not, disenfranchise voters.

Instead, Shelby County unleashed a wave of discriminatory voting policies in the states. Within hours of the ruling, Texas  announced  it would implement a restrictive voter ID policy that a court had previously blocked. All told, in the 11 years following the decision, at least 31 states have enacted at least 103 new restrictive voting laws .

Even in just the law few years, restrictive laws continue to pass at alarming rates, disproportionately impacting minority voters. In 2022, at least 8 states enacted 11 restrictive voting laws. In 2023 , at least 14 states enacted 17 restrictive voting laws. And in the first four months of 2024 , at least 6 states enacted 7 restrictive laws. Had Congress passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act in 2022, many of these harmful policies would have been subject to federal review and likely blocked.

Without the protection of preclearance, voters must rely on lawsuits to challenge discriminatory voting practices and racially discriminatory maps. Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, policies that deny the right to vote on account of race or color are prohibited. But lawsuits are expensive, time consuming, and allow discriminatory policies to be in effect until they’re resolved.

Compounding this problem, in 2021, the Supreme Court weakened Section 2 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee . That decision made it more difficult to challenge discriminatory voting laws in court, tilting the playing field in favor of discriminatory states.

That was the case in the 2022 redistricting cycle. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, concluded that some proposed maps were in fact discriminatory. But lawsuits were not enough to block discriminatory maps from being used during the midterm elections in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Voters in other states are still awaiting their day in court. All told, as of July 2024 , 32 cases have challenged congressional or legislative maps under Section 2.

The Voting Rights Act was among the most successful and pivotal legislation to come out of the civil rights movement. It increased participation among minority voters and blocked racially discriminatory maps intended to limit their voting power. Congress’s failure to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and its companion bill, the Freedom to Vote Act , has weakened our democracy. On the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act’s enactment, it is critically important to acknowledge all the obstacles that remain for minority communities and the urgent need for reform. Congress must prioritize passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act — not just to rectify past injustices, but to safeguard the future of our democracy for all eligible voters.

Related Issues:

How Federal Agencies Are Increasing Access to Voting

Drawing on the spirit of the Voting Rights Act, President Biden’s executive order taps federal agencies to expand voter registration.

The Racial Turnout Gap 11 Years After SCOTUS Diminished the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County

Since Shelby County v. Holder , voting rights experts have continued to try to mitigate the decision’s damage and convince Congress to do its own repair work. 

The Good News About Democracy in 2023

Freedom to vote in jeopardy, especially for people of color, the freedom to vote, the voting rights act explained, washington supreme court unanimously upholds the state’s voting rights act, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

The Enduring Work of Protecting Voting Rights: 59 Years and Counting

The Justice Department once described the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted . President Lyndon B. Johnson, when he signed the bill on Aug. 6, 1965, called it “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.”

The act has opened the door for more Americans to have voice in our democratic process. Sadly, though, opponents continue to undermine and obstruct access to the ballot. The Voting Rights Act is, as yet, a promise unfulfilled.

Just last week, for example, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals contradicted its own precedent that has stood for 35 years when it overturned a lower court’s ruling that a redistricting plan in Galveston County, Texas, violated Section 2 of the Act. The Court overruled its previous standard allowing politically cohesive Black and Latino voters to join together in claiming that an election system or districting plan denied them an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

When signed into law, the VRA was the first legislation to forbid outright rules that denied voting rights on account of race or color. It also outlawed literacy tests, and it required jurisdictions to provide bilingual ballots if enough of their voters had limited English proficiency.

Importantly, in Section 4(b), the act identified localities whose history of discrimination was egregious enough to warrant special oversight. Section 5 contained the consequential idea of preclearance: those identified localities would now have to submit potential voting rule changes for federal approval. They could no longer suppress votes at whim.

For almost half a century, this vital piece of legislation empowered the Justice Department to stop localities from obstructing voters of color from participating fully in the electoral process. Section 5 thwarted such barriers nearly 1,200 times.

But in 2013 the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder , found Section 4(b) of the VRA unconstitutional. Without it, Section 5’s protective shield vanished. Shelby flung wide the floodgates to voter suppression, and opponents of representative democracy wasted no time in barreling through them.

States introduced restrictive voting measures the day of and in the days after Shelby , and they have continued to erode voting rights. Last year, the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy institute, declared that since 2013, nearly a hundred new laws have restricted voting rights, many in states previously identified by Section 4(b)’s formula.

As a small sample, according to the Brennan Center, in 2021, at least 19 states passed 34 laws meant to abridge voting rights. In 2022, eight states passed 11 such laws and in 2023 at least 14 states passed 17.

In 2024, the barriers continue to mount.

Some courts, seemingly unconstrained by either precedent or the language of the statute, have spurred on this destructive process with decisions that further curtail the protection of voting rights, fueling a surge of litigation assaults by state governments and others that even attack the constitutionality of Section 2, despite the Supreme Court decision upholding it in 2023.

These threats are grave, but the Justice Department’s response is unstinting. As the actions below reveal, we vigorously confront voting discrimination.

• We challenged restrictive voting laws enacted by states and counties nationwide, such as by convincing a federal court to strike down Arizona laws requiring people registering to vote to list their birthplace and provide proof of citizenship.
• In a different case , we challenged Texas’ restrictions on voter assistance at the polls, including laws that prohibit assistance for voters with disabilities or those who cannot read or write. We also challenged statewide redistricting plans in Texas .
• We challenged several restrictive state voting practices in Georgia, including rules that banned government entities from distributing unsolicited absentee ballot applications, moved up the deadline to request an absentee ballot, and prohibited giving food or water to people waiting in line to vote.
• We also sued local jurisdictions. For example, we sued Galveston County, Texas , to challenge its redistricting plan, the case the Fifth Circuit overturned last week. And in Oneida County, New York , we ensured that the county would process voter registrations submitted before the deadline for federal elections and promptly include qualified voters on the rolls for federal elections.
• In Georgia, we worked to protect voters from intimidation, threats, and coercion in Fair Fight v. True the Vote .
• We defended the VRA’s ban on racial discrimination, such as via redistricting plans that dilute the strength of minority voters, in Alpha Phi Alpha v. Raffensperger and Nairne v. Ardoin . We helped defend absentee voting rights protections in presidential elections in IATSE v. Mashburn .
• We supported private citizens’ rights to challenge unfair voting practices by filing briefs in federal trial courts in Alabama (2) , Arkansas , Colorado , Florida , Georgia (2) , Kansas , Missouri , Nebraska , New Hampshire , North Dakota , Pennsylvania (2) and Texas .
• During the Nov. 8, 2022, general election, we monitored polls in more than 50 jurisdictions in more than 20 states and operated a call center to receive election complaints. Since January 2021, we have monitored elections in 76 jurisdictions in 24 states.
• We protected the voting rights of people who speak primarily a language other than English in Union County, New Jersey , and Pawtucket, Rhode Island .
• In New Jersey , we safeguarded the rights of voters with disabilities to broadly access voter registration opportunities through paratransit and other state-funded disability transportation services.

The great heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, both leaders and foot soldiers, fought, bled and died to secure the precious right to vote. Now, in the courts, in the legislatures, and on the ground, we face deterioration of the voting rights that our forbearers sacrificed so much to win.   

We call on you to become civil rights heroes. Report voting rights violations. Report threats against election workers.  Speak out against efforts to restrict access to the polls. 

Know that we will be there beside you. We will not shrink from the challenge. We will continue the struggle of those who came before us. We will honor their sacrifice. The stakes are too high; our freedom is too precious for anything less.

Related Content

The Justice Department announced today that it will monitor compliance with federal voting rights laws in Hawaii for the Aug. 10 primary election. The department will monitor in Honolulu County...

Two former corrections officers from the Southern Regional Jail in Beaver, West Virginia, pleaded guilty today for their respective roles in an assault that resulted in the death of an...

A former detention officer with the Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff’s Office was sentenced today to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release for intentionally depriving a detained...

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: Biden- ⁠ Harris Administration Announces New AI Actions and Receives Additional Major Voluntary Commitment on   AI

Nine months ago, President Biden issued a landmark Executive Order to ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of artificial intelligence (AI). This Executive Order built on the voluntary commitments he and Vice President Harris received from 15 leading U.S. AI companies last year. Today, the administration announced that Apple has signed onto the voluntary commitments, further cementing these commitments as cornerstones of responsible AI innovation. In addition, federal agencies reported that they completed all of the 270-day actions in the Executive Order on schedule, following their on-time completion of every other task required to date . Agencies also progressed on other work directed for longer timeframes. Following the Executive Order and a series of calls to action made by Vice President Harris as part of her major policy speech before the Global Summit on AI Safety, agencies all across government have acted boldly. They have taken steps to mitigate AI’s safety and security risks, protect Americans’ privacy, advance equity and civil rights, stand up for consumers and workers, promote innovation and competition, advance American leadership around the world, and more. Actions that agencies reported today as complete include the following: Managing Risks to Safety and Security: Over 270 days, the Executive Order directed agencies to take sweeping action to address AI’s safety and security risks, including by releasing vital safety guidance and building capacity to test and evaluate AI. To protect safety and security, agencies have:

• Released for public comment new technical guidelines from the AI Safety Institute (AISI) for leading AI developers in managing the evaluation of misuse of dual-use foundation models. AISI’s guidelines detail how leading AI developers can help prevent increasingly capable AI systems from being misused to harm individuals, public safety, and national security, as well as how developers can increase transparency about their products.
• Published final frameworks on managing generative AI risks and securely developing generative AI systems and dual-use foundation models. These documents by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will provide additional guidance that builds on NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework, which offered individuals, organizations, and society a framework to manage AI risks and has been widely adopted both in the U.S. and globally. NIST also submitted a report to the White House outlining tools and techniques to reduce the risks from synthetic content.
• Developed and expanded AI testbeds and model evaluation tools at the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE, in coordination with interagency partners, is using its testbeds to evaluate AI model safety and security, especially for risks that AI models might pose to critical infrastructure, energy security, and national security. DOE’s testbeds are also being used to explore novel AI hardware and software systems, including privacy-enhancing technologies that improve AI trustworthiness. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also launched an initiative to help fund researchers outside the federal government design and plan AI-ready testbeds.
• Reported results of piloting AI to protect vital government software.  The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported findings from their AI pilots to address vulnerabilities in government networks used, respectively, for national security purposes and for civilian government. These steps build on previous work to advance such pilots within 180 days of the Executive Order.
• Issued a call to action from the Gender Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy to combat image-based sexual abuse, including synthetic content generated by AI. Image-based sexual abuse has emerged as one of the fastest growing harmful uses of AI to-date, and the call to action invites technology companies and other industry stakeholders to curb it. This call flowed from Vice President Harris’s remarks in London before the AI Safety Summit, which underscored that deepfake image-based sexual abuse is an urgent threat that demands global action.

Bringing AI Talent into Government Last year, the Executive Order launched a government-wide AI Talent Surge that is bringing hundreds of AI and AI-enabling professionals into government. Hired individuals are working on critical AI missions, such as informing efforts to use AI for permitting, advising on AI investments across the federal government, and writing policy for the use of AI in government.

• To increase AI capacity across the federal government for both national security and non-national security missions, the AI Talent Surge has made over 200 hires to-date, including through the Presidential Innovation Fellows AI cohort and the DHS AI Corps .
• Building on the AI Talent Surge 6-month report , the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced new commitments from across the technology ecosystem, including nearly $100 million in funding, to bolster the broader public interest technology ecosystem and build infrastructure for bringing technologists into government service.

Advancing Responsible AI Innovation President Biden’s Executive Order directed further actions to seize AI’s promise and deepen the U.S. lead in AI innovation while ensuring AI’s responsible development and use across our economy and society. Within 270 days, agencies have:

• Prepared and will soon release a report on the potential benefits, risks, and implications of dual-use foundation models for which the model weights are widely available, including related policy recommendations. The Department of Commerce’s report draws on extensive outreach to experts and stakeholders, including hundreds of public comments submitted on this topic.
• Awarded over 80 research teams’ access to computational and other AI resources through the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) pilot —a national infrastructure led by NSF, in partnership with DOE, NIH, and other governmental and nongovernmental partners, that makes available resources to support the nation’s AI research and education community. Supported projects will tackle deepfake detection, advance AI safety, enable next-generation medical diagnoses and further other critical AI priorities.
• Released a guide for designing safe, secure, and trustworthy AI tools for use in education. The Department of Education’s guide discusses how developers of educational technologies can design AI that benefits students and teachers while advancing equity, civil rights, trust, and transparency. This work builds on the Department’s 2023 report outlining recommendations for the use of AI in teaching and learning.
• Published guidance on evaluating the eligibility of patent claims involving inventions related to AI technology,  as well as other emerging technologies. The guidance by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will guide those inventing in the AI space to protect their AI inventions and assist patent examiners reviewing applications for patents on AI inventions.
• Issued a report on federal research and development (R&D) to advance trustworthy AI over the past four years. The report by the National Science and Technology Council examines an annual federal AI R&D budget of nearly $3 billion.
• Launched a $23 million initiative to promote the use of privacy-enhancing technologies to solve real-world problems, including related to AI.  Working with industry and agency partners, NSF will invest through its new Privacy-preserving Data Sharing in Practice program in efforts to apply, mature, and scale privacy-enhancing technologies for specific use cases and establish testbeds to accelerate their adoption.
• Announced millions of dollars in further investments to advance responsible AI development and use throughout our society. These include $30 million invested through NSF’s Experiential Learning in Emerging and Novel Technologies program—which supports inclusive experiential learning in fields like AI—and $10 million through NSF’s ExpandAI program, which helps build capacity in AI research at minority-serving institutions while fostering the development of a diverse, AI-ready workforce.

Advancing U.S. Leadership Abroad President Biden’s Executive Order emphasized that the United States lead global efforts to unlock AI’s potential and meet its challenges. To advance U.S. leadership on AI, agencies have:

• Issued a comprehensive plan for U.S. engagement on global AI standards.  The plan, developed by the NIST, incorporates broad public and private-sector input, identifies objectives and priority areas for AI standards work, and lays out actions for U.S. stakeholders including U.S. agencies. NIST and others agencies will report on priority actions in 180 days. 
• Developed guidance for managing risks to human rights posed by AI. The Department of State’s “Risk Management Profile for AI and Human Rights”—developed in close coordination with NIST and the U.S. Agency for International Development—recommends actions based on the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to governments, the private sector, and civil society worldwide, to identify and manage risks to human rights arising from the design, development, deployment, and use of AI. 
• Launched a global network of AI Safety Institutes and other government-backed scientific offices to advance AI safety at a technical level. This network will accelerate critical information exchange and drive toward common or compatible safety evaluations and policies.
• Launched a landmark United Nations General Assembly resolution . The unanimously adopted resolution, with more than 100 co-sponsors, lays out a common vision for countries around the world to promote the safe and secure use of AI to address global challenges.
• Expanded global support for the U.S.-led Political Declaration on the Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.   Fifty-five nations now endorse the political declaration, which outlines a set of norms for the responsible development, deployment, and use of military AI capabilities.

The Table below summarizes many of the activities that federal agencies have completed in response to the Executive Order:

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Senate Appropriations Bill Maintains Critical Housing Investments While House Bill Makes Deep Cuts

The Senate and House appropriations committees took sharply different approaches to funding rental assistance programs for 2025. While the Senate Appropriations Committee’s bill would fully fund existing housing vouchers and provide more resources for other critical housing and homelessness programs, the House Appropriations Committee’s proposal would result in an estimated 240,400 fewer households receiving vouchers and cut other affordable housing resources. As Congress continues appropriations for 2025, it should adopt the Senate’s higher funding levels and prioritize renewing rental assistance to help people with low incomes afford a stable home.

While increases in rental costs have slowed, rents remain high compared to incomes , and the voucher program is still catching up. More funding for voucher subsidies is needed to maintain current levels of assistance and to ensure that families can use their vouchers in a range of housing options that best suit their needs.

The Senate bill adds enough funding to renew existing housing vouchers, assuming no unexpected increases in program costs. It also provides funding for 3,000 new vouchers for foster youth and for veterans experiencing homelessness — and $268 million above 2024 levels for programs that connect people experiencing homelessness to services and housing.

The Senate bill also includes a demonstration project to test whether using voucher subsidy funds to cover tenants’ security and utility deposits helps households use their vouchers more easily in high-cost, low-vacancy rental markets. Another provision would let the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) give housing agencies additional flexibilities in using population-specific vouchers for people with disabilities and foster youth, acknowledging the barriers these households face and making it easier for them to use their vouchers to secure a home.

Conversely, the House bill increases funding slightly over 2024 levels for Housing Choice Vouchers, but not enough to maintain current levels of assistance. It would serve 240,400 fewer households, we estimate. (See tables below for state-level and demographic housing voucher loss estimates.) Unlike in other years, housing agencies will have limited program reserves in 2025 to help offset any funding shortfalls.

Housing Choice Vouchers are our most effective tool to address homelessness and housing instability, and they serve more than 5 million people. However, the most recent data show that 77 percent of renters with low incomes who need federal rental assistance don’t receive it, as a result of years of underfunding. This unmet need has been slowly increasing in recent years , and further reducing assistance will exacerbate harm.

One reason for the stark difference between the bills: House Republicans omitted critical funding adjustments under the bipartisan agreements in 2023 that raised the federal debt ceiling and set spending caps for 2024 and 2025. The Senate incorporated the funding adjustments and other additional funding in its appropriations bill, enabling it to maintain current levels of rental assistance.

But the agreement’s tight spending caps still limited the funding that could be used to help more people experiencing housing instability. Congress needs to reevaluate these caps and provide additional investments in proven solutions like rental assistance to meet demand and prevent further increases in the number of people experiencing homelessness.

The House bill would eliminate funding for eviction prevention resources; a program focused on inclusive zoning; the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, which helps eligible Native Hawaiians with low incomes live on their homelands; and the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which is needed to revitalize public and affordable housing and the surrounding neighborhoods that have long been denied resources due to redlining and other discriminatory policies. It would also cut the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which funds affordable housing development and rehabilitation, by $750 million.

The House bill also includes a number of harmful policy provisions:

• blocking localities that have adopted laws or policies that limit their coordination with federal immigration enforcement (“sanctuary cities”) from receiving federal funding;
• preventing HUD from finalizing its proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, a critical tool for helping to combat and reverse the impacts of discrimination in housing and community development policies;
• eliminating a requirement originally established under a COVID-19 relief law that owners of federally assisted properties give at least 30 days’ notice to a tenant facing eviction for non-payment of rent;
• blocking HUD’s ability to implement efforts to promote equity and inclusion for staff and within programs;
• undermining efforts to address the climate crisis; and
• protecting organizations that discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people.

Unfortunately, both bills cut funding for public housing compared to 2024 levels, continuing a long pattern of disinvestment in this source of affordable housing for its more than 1.6 million residents. The House bill would reduce funding by nearly $600 million (6.8 percent), while the Senate bill would make a smaller cut of $28 million. Congress should ensure that a final 2025 bill fully funds public housing. However, both bills would increase Native American housing programs by $111 million to help correct for a decrease in buying power over the program’s history.

Moving forward, Congress needs to reject spending caps and expand rental assistance to help all people with low incomes who need it.

Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred (unless under 100) and may not sum to totals due to rounding. Source: 2023 HUD Picture of Subsidized Households, HUD Housing Choice Vouchers Dashboard

Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Latine category may contain individuals of any race who identify as Latine or Hispanic; other categories exclude individuals who identify as Latine or Hispanic. Estimates for children, older adults, people with disabilities, and women and girls are not mutually exclusive. Older adult category includes individuals aged 62 or older. People with disabilities includes people of all ages. Source: CBPP analysis of 2022 HUD administrative data

Sonya Acosta

Erik Gartland

Policy basics housing.

• Federal Rental Assistance
• Project-Based Vouchers
• Public Housing
• Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
• The Housing Choice Voucher Program

More on this Topic

Policymakers can solve homelessness by scaling up proven solutions: rental assistance and supportive services, making rental assistance work better for people struggling to afford housing, research shows rental assistance reduces hardship and provides platform to expand opportunity for low-income families, 77% of low-income renters needing federal rental assistance don't receive it.

Legislative Branch

Congress Creates the Bill of Rights

Within the half-billion pages of records in the care of the Center for Legislative Archives, there are some special treasures from the First Congress that show how the ratification of the Constitution necessitated the creation of the Bill of Rights , and how the creation of the Bill of Rights, in turn, completed the Constitution. The remarkable story of the relationship between two of our Charters of Freedom is told in Congress Creates the Bill of Rights .

Congress Creates the Bill of Rights consists of three elements: an eBook, a mobile app for tablets, and online resources for teachers and students. Each provides a distinct way of exploring how the First Congress proposed amendments to the Constitution in 1789.

The eBook focuses on James Madison's leadership role in creating the Bill of Rights, effectively completing the U.S. Constitution. Starting with the crises facing the nation in the 1780s, the narrative traces the call for constitutional amendments from the state ratification conventions. Through close examination of the featured document, Senate Revisions to the House Proposed Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the reader goes inside the First Congress, as Madison and the leaders of rival political factions worked in the House and Senate to formulate amendments to change the recently ratified Constitution.

The eBook is available for download on your computer and available in iTunes and the iBookstore for your iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch.

The mobile app is an interactive learning tool for tablets that situates the user in the proposals, debates, and revisions that shaped the Bill of Rights. Its menu-based organization presents a historic overview, a detailed study of the evolving language of each proposed amendment as it was shaped in the House and Senate, a close-up look at essential documents, and opportunities for participation and reflection designed for individual or collaborative exploration.

The app is available for download on iPads in the App Store .

The PDF version of Congress Creates the Bill of Rights contains all the content of the app. The PDF is divided into four sections: Get the Background ; Go Inside the First Congress ; Amendments in Process ; and Join the Debate . Each section contains a hyper-linked table of contents and each page contains a menu box back to the table of contents.

Online Resources

The online resources available for teachers and students present questions, lesson ideas, and supporting resources selected to facilitate learning with the app and eBook. Studying how Congress created the Bill of Rights teaches vital lessons about history and the timeless principles of our civic life. They also provide lessons about the history of representative government and will strengthen students' understanding of their roles and responsibilities in civic life today.

• Manage Account

Sadie Sink Relied On ‘Years of Research As a Swiftie’ To Tap Into Character’s Pain in Taylor Swift’s ‘All Too Well’ Short Film

The "Stranger Things" actress said she'd never been in love when she was cast in the visual for the short film.

By Gil Kaufman

Gil Kaufman

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Share on Pinterest
• + additional share options added
• Share on Reddit
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Whats App
• Send an Email
• Print this article
• Post a Comment
• Share on Tumblr

If you can tell an actor is acting when you watch them on the screen then they’re probably not doing a great job. But if you couldn’t discern that Stranger Things star Sadie Sink had never really been in love despite certainly acting like it in Taylor Swift ‘s All Too Well: The Short Film , then that’s because Sink did some deep-dive research to get into character as her half of the dysfunctional, age-gap relationship with actor Dylan O’Brien.

Charlie Puth Says Taylor Swift ‘Nudged’ Him to Inject More ‘Storytelling’ Into…

Trending on billboard.

Sink said she connected to herself in a profound way — like many Swifties — through the singer’s confessional lyrics, especially the song’s biting kiss-off line, “And you call me up again just to break me like a promise.” In the break-up scene, as that lyric unfolds, Sink is shown curled in a ball on her bed weeping as her phone lights up in the nearly 15-minute mini-movie written and directed by Swift.

“As I was going, things from my personal life kind of came forward, which fueled it even more,” she said of the tricky actor’s task of trying to focus on what’s going on with their character rather than tapping into their own life experiences to find the right emotional tone for a scene. “Then I was like, ‘Whoa. Maybe I should do some work on Sadie in these areas.’”  

While the now-22-year-old star didn’t go into detail on what that work entailed, she did note that she’s since cut “All Too Well” from her “wind-down song” playlist while working on the anticipated upcoming fifth and final season of Stranger Things . “It holds this incredibly nostalgic feeling for me now that I feel physically in my body,” she said as she wrapped her arms around herself. “It’s too intense.” 

Watch All Too Well: The Short Film below.

Get weekly rundowns straight to your inbox

Want to know what everyone in the music business is talking about?

Get in the know on.

Billboard is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Billboard Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

optional screen reader

Charts expand charts menu.

• Billboard Hot 100™
• Billboard 200™
• Hits Of The World™
• TikTok Billboard Top 50
• Songs Of The Summer
• Song Breaker
• Year-End Charts
• Decade-End Charts

Music Expand music menu

• R&B/Hip-Hop

Videos Expand videos menu

Culture expand culture menu, media expand media menu, business expand business menu.

• Business News
• Record Labels
• View All Pro

Pro Tools Expand pro-tools menu

• Songwriters & Producers
• Artist Index
• Royalty Calculator
• Market Watch
• Industry Events Calendar

Billboard Español Expand billboard-espanol menu

• Cultura y Entretenimiento

Get Up Anthems by Tres Expand get-up-anthems-by-tres menu

Honda music expand honda-music menu.

CHIPS for America Act & FABS Act

Congress Passes Investments in Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing, Research & Design

In July 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS Act of 2022 to strengthen domestic semiconductor manufacturing, design and research, fortify the economy and national security, and reinforce America’s chip supply chains.

The share of modern semiconductor manufacturing capacity located in the U.S. has eroded from 37% in 1990 to 12% today, mostly because other countries’ governments have invested ambitiously in chip manufacturing incentives and the U.S. government has not. Meanwhile, federal investments in chip research have held flat as a share of GDP, while other countries have significantly ramped up research investments.

To address these challenges, Congress passed  the CHIPS Act of 2022, which includes semiconductor manufacturing grants, research investments, and an investment tax credit for chip manufacturing. SIA also supports enactment of an investment tax credit for semiconductor design. 

By passing the CHIPS Act, Congress has risen to a defining challenge of our time, seized an historic opportunity to fortify American semiconductor manufacturing, design, and research, and delivered a big win for our country. 

CHIPS Award Announcements>

STATEMENT: SIA Applauds Passage of CHIPS Act of 2022>

FACT SHEET: CHIPS Act of 2022>

SIA News>

What They’re Saying>

Global Incentives>

Featured News

Letters to policymakers, policy reports, other resources, semiconductors in america coalition (siac).

American Jobs are Built on Semiconductors

The semiconductor industry directly employs nearly 338,000 people in America and supports more than 1.9 million additional jobs throughout the U.S. economy. With bold greater federal investment in domestic chip manufacturing and research, our economic impact would be even greater.

Learn More >

1101 K Street NW Suite 450, Washington, DC 20005 E-mail

• Sign up for SIA News
• Privacy Policy