For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has left open the question whether the U.S. Constitution protects a right to some amount of education. While such a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, advocates have long argued for the existence of an implicit, fundamental right to a basic minimum education under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Recognition of such a right requires grappling with the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence. To be a fundamental right, one requirement is that a proposed right have deep roots in U.S. history and tradition. This Comment examines whether the right to a basic minimum education—defined as basic literacy—is deeply rooted.

While courts differ in how they analyze whether a right is deeply rooted, they all generally view the time around the Fourteenth Amendment’s enactment as a relevant historical consideration. With a focus on that time period, this Comment analyzes two case studies: the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands—or “Freedmen’s Bureau”—and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In both cases, the federal government perceived a gap in local provision of education and responded through these agencies with support for literacy education. In serving as a backstop to local educational failures, the federal government’s actions ensured access to a basic literacy education. This pattern of behavior provides support for the notion that the right to a basic minimum education is deeply rooted.

几十年来，美国最高法院一直没有解决美国宪法是否保护受教育权的问题。虽然宪法没有具体列举这样的权利，但倡导者长期以来一直认为，根据第十四修正案的正当程序条款，存在获得基本最低限度教育的隐含的基本权利。承认这种权利需要与最高法院的实质性正当程序判例作斗争。要成为一项基本权利，一个要求是提议的权利在美国历史和传统中具有深厚的根基。本评论考察了接受基本最低教育的权利——定义为基本识字——是否根深蒂固。

尽管法院在分析一项权利是否根深蒂固的方式上存在差异，但他们都普遍将第十四修正案颁布前后的时间视为相关的历史考量。本评论着眼于那个时期，分析了两个案例研究：难民、自由民和废弃土地局——或“自由民局”——和印第安事务局。在这两种情况下，联邦政府都认为当地提供的教育存在差距，并通过这些机构支持扫盲教育。作为当地教育失败的后盾，联邦政府的行动确保了获得基本扫盲教育的机会。这种行为模式支持接受基本最低教育的权利根深蒂固的观念。