Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights protect familiar liberties like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and trial by jury. The Tenth Amendment divides power between federal government and states. But between them sits the Ninth Amendment, which reads like an instruction from the past.
The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Unlike its neighbors, it doesn’t grant a specific right. Instead, it provides a rule for reading the entire document. It’s a safeguard born from a debate that nearly tore apart the young nation before it could begin.
The Ninth Amendment reveals the deepest anxieties and most important compromises of the Founding Fathers. After carefully listing people’s rights, why did they find it necessary to add this clause about all the rights they didn’t list?
The Great Debate Over a Bill of Rights
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists
In 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia concluded, producing a blueprint for a new national government. Before this Constitution could become law, it needed ratification by at least nine of the thirteen states.
This set the stage for one of the most intense political battles in American history, pitting two rival factions against each other: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, were the Constitution’s architects and champions. They argued that the weak government under the Articles of Confederation had failed and that a stronger national government was essential for the nation’s survival.
They presented themselves as the party of solutions, offering an organized and robust plan for the future.
The Anti-Federalist Opposition
On the other side were the Anti-Federalists, a diverse group including prominent patriots like Patrick Henry and George Mason. Their opposition was rooted in deep-seated fear of centralized power.
They believed the new Constitution gave far too much authority to the national government at the expense of states and people. They worried that a distant federal government would be unresponsive to ordinary citizens and that the presidency held “disguised monarchic powers.”
But their most potent argument was the Constitution’s shocking omission: it lacked a bill of rights.
The Anti-Federalists argued that without an explicit declaration of rights, people’s liberties were in grave danger. They pointed to powerful new clauses in the Constitution, such as the Supremacy Clause making federal law supreme over state law and the Necessary and Proper Clause giving Congress broad authority to pass needed laws.
They feared this combination would allow the federal government to claim vast “implied powers,” enabling it to trample fundamental rights that citizens had fought a revolution to secure.
For Anti-Federalists, a bill of rights wasn’t a suggestion—it was an absolute necessity to define government limits and serve as a “fire bell for the people,” allowing them to know immediately when their rights were threatened.
The Federalist Response: A Dangerous Proposal
The Federalists’ response to demands for a bill of rights was sophisticated and, in their view, critically important. They argued first that a bill of rights was unnecessary because enumerating specific rights might imply that unlisted rights were not protected, potentially expanding federal power
The new government, they contended, was one of limited and enumerated powers. It only had the specific powers listed in the Constitution; everything not granted was retained by states or people.
As Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist Papers, since the government had no power to regulate the press, there was no need for a provision declaring that press freedom couldn’t be infringed. Doing so would be redundant.
More importantly, Federalists argued that adding a bill of rights wasn’t just unnecessary—it was actively dangerous. This was their most powerful counter-argument.
They warned that any attempt to list people’s rights would inevitably be incomplete. It’s impossible to list every single right a person possesses. Therefore, a partial list would create a perilous implication: that any right not included wasn’t protected and was therefore surrendered to the government.
As Hamilton put it, a bill of rights would “afford a colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
This was the Federalist trap: the very act of creating a list to protect rights could become the tool used to destroy all the rights left off the list.
The Political Compromise
While Federalists may have had a strong philosophical argument, Anti-Federalists had the support of a wary public. The memory of struggle against the British crown was fresh, and the idea of creating another powerful, distant government without explicit limits was deeply unpopular.
The Anti-Federalist demand for a bill of rights resonated in state ratifying conventions, and it became clear that the Constitution might not be ratified without one. Just a week before the Constitution was signed, George Mason had proposed adding a bill of rights, but his motion was rejected. This rejection became a rallying cry for the opposition.
Faced with the real possibility of failure, Federalists made a strategic concession. Led by James Madison, who was convinced by arguments he heard in the Virginia ratifying convention and in correspondence with Thomas Jefferson, Federalists promised that if states would ratify the Constitution as written, the very first Congress under the new government would take up amendments and add a bill of rights.
This promise was the key that unlocked ratification. It was a political solution to a philosophical problem.
But in agreeing to create a bill of rights, Federalists now had to solve the very paradox they had warned about. How could they create a list of protected rights without implicitly surrendering all the rights not on the list?
The answer was the Ninth Amendment. It was the “guard,” as Madison would call it, that allowed Federalists to meet Anti-Federalists’ demand for a list of rights without abandoning their core principle that people retained a vast universe of liberties too numerous to ever be written down.
The Ninth Amendment essentially says to government and future generations: “Here is the list of rights you demanded, but you are hereby forbidden from using this list in the dangerous way we warned about.”
Madison’s Constitutional Masterstroke
The Architect of Compromise
James Madison of Virginia, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” was also the indispensable figure behind the Bill of Rights. Initially, Madison shared the standard Federalist view that a bill of rights wasn’t strictly necessary and could even be dangerous.
He worried that any “positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude” and might end up narrowing rights, like the right of conscience, rather than protecting them.
However, his political pragmatism and commitment to the new republic led him to change his position. He saw that the lack of a bill of rights was the single greatest obstacle to the Constitution’s acceptance and that a promise to add one was essential.
Once in the First Congress, Madison became the chief advocate for the amendments, tirelessly pushing a reluctant Federalist majority to make good on their promise. He understood the gravity of the task.
He had to satisfy Anti-Federalists’ demand for explicit protections while simultaneously neutralizing Federalists’ own powerful objection. Madison himself gave that objection great credit, stating on the floor of the House of Representatives that the argument—that enumerating specific rights would “disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration”—was “one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights.”
His solution was to draft an amendment specifically designed to defuse this “plausible argument.”
The Original Draft: A Window into Intent
To fully grasp the Ninth Amendment’s purpose, it’s valuable to look at the more detailed version James Madison first proposed to Congress. His initial draft was longer and more explicit than the final text, providing a clear window into his thinking.
Madison’s proposed text read: “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
This language reveals two distinct but related purposes. First, it was meant to protect the “just importance” of the vast universe of unenumerated rights that people retained.
Second, and just as critically, it was designed to prevent the list of rights from being misinterpreted as a way to “enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution.” Madison was directly addressing the Anti-Federalist fear that the federal government would use the Bill of Rights as a pretext to expand its authority into areas not originally intended.
The final clause—that these listed rights were either “actual limitations” on power or “inserted merely for greater caution”—drove the point home. The Bill of Rights was a shield for the people, not a sword for the government.
The Final Text: A Rule of Construction
A Select Committee of the House of Representatives, on which Madison served, took up his proposals. The committee streamlined his language, editing it down to the concise phrasing that was ultimately ratified: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Though shorter, its fundamental purpose remained unchanged. The Ninth Amendment is what lawyers and scholars call a “rule of construction.” It’s not a source of rights itself; rather, it’s an instruction manual for how to read the rest of the Constitution.
It tells judges, lawmakers, and citizens that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list. The fact that a right isn’t specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist (“deny”) nor does it mean that it’s less important than the rights that are listed (“disparage”).
Crucially, it serves as a barrier against the government inferring that its powers are expanded by implication. It prevents the government from arguing, “Since the Bill of Rights doesn’t forbid us from doing X, we must have the power to do X.”
The Ninth Amendment says, “No, your powers are limited to what is expressly granted, and the people’s rights are not limited to what is expressly listed.”
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Two Shields for Liberty
The Ninth Amendment doesn’t stand alone; it operates in tandem with its companion, the Tenth Amendment, which states: “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.”
Together, they form a powerful dual-lock on federal power:
- The Ninth Amendment protects unenumerated rights of the people
- The Tenth Amendment reserves undelegated powers to the States and the people
They are two sides of the same coin of limited government. The Ninth addresses the scope of individual liberty, while the Tenth addresses the scope of government authority.
Madison himself demonstrated this symbiotic relationship shortly after the amendments were ratified. In a 1791 debate in Congress over Alexander Hamilton’s proposal to create a national bank, Madison argued against it on both Ninth and Tenth Amendment grounds.
He argued that the power to create a bank wasn’t among the powers delegated to Congress (a Tenth Amendment argument) and that a broad interpretation of federal power was precisely what the Ninth Amendment was designed to guard against.
This reveals the Ninth Amendment’s original and primary function. It wasn’t intended to be a font of new, judicially-created rights. Instead, it was a vital interpretive tool meant to constrain federal government power, particularly the implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Anti-Federalists had feared that this clause would be an engine of tyranny. Madison’s response, embodied in the Ninth Amendment, was to build a rule of interpretation directly into the Constitution that mandated a narrow construction of those powers.
It serves as a constant reminder to government: before you claim an action is “necessary and proper,” you must consider the vast realm of rights retained by the people, which your actions must not deny or disparage.
The Amendment Awakens in the Courts
A Century and a Half of Silence
Despite its crucial role in the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment fell into a long period of judicial obscurity. For more than 170 years after its adoption in 1791, it was rarely cited in Supreme Court decisions and its application has been limited and often contentious.
It was often dismissed as a mere “truism” or a statement of political philosophy with no real teeth. In the few instances it was invoked, such as in the 1947 case United Public Workers v. Mitchell, the Court typically lumped it together with the Tenth Amendment as a provision related to the reservation of powers to the states and the people, denying it any independent force to protect individual rights.
For all practical purposes, the Ninth Amendment was a forgotten part of the Constitution.
Griswold v. Connecticut: The Landmark Case
The Ninth Amendment’s long slumber came to an abrupt end in 1965 with the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut. The case brought the amendment roaring into the modern constitutional era and ignited a debate that continues today.
The case centered on a challenge to an archaic 1879 Connecticut law that made it a crime for any person to use “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” The law even made it a crime to assist or counsel someone in using contraceptives.
Estelle Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a physician and professor at Yale Medical School, deliberately violated the law by opening a birth control clinic in New Haven to provide advice to married couples.
They were arrested, convicted, and fined $100 each. Their case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Douglas’s “Penumbras and Emanations”
In a 7-2 decision, the Court struck down the Connecticut law. The majority opinion, written by Justice William O. Douglas, famously didn’t point to a single, specific right in the Constitution.
Instead, he argued that various guarantees in the Bill of Rights have “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” He reasoned that rights such as the freedom of association (First Amendment), the prohibition on quartering soldiers in private homes (Third Amendment), and the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) create “zones of privacy” that the government cannot invade.
The sacred relationship of marriage, he concluded, fell within this zone of privacy. Justice Douglas mentioned the Ninth Amendment as one more piece of textual evidence that the Bill of Rights protects fundamental rights beyond those explicitly listed.
Justice Goldberg’s Influential Concurrence
It was a concurring opinion, however, that truly put the Ninth Amendment on the map. Justice Arthur Goldberg, joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, wrote a separate opinion that placed the Ninth Amendment at the very center of his legal reasoning.
He argued that the Ninth Amendment wasn’t merely a footnote but a vital part of the Constitution’s protection of liberty. To hold that a right as “basic and fundamental” as the right of privacy in marriage could be infringed simply because it isn’t listed in the first eight amendments, he wrote, “is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever.”
For Justice Goldberg, the Ninth Amendment was direct proof that the Framers believed in the existence of fundamental rights that weren’t enumerated, and it was the Court’s duty to protect them.
Judicial Reluctance: Roe v. Wade and Beyond
While Griswold opened the door for the Ninth Amendment, the Supreme Court has been remarkably hesitant to walk through it. Justice Goldberg’s powerful concurrence seemed to provide a clear, text-based path for protecting unenumerated rights.
A case like Roe v. Wade in 1973, which concerned the unenumerated right of a woman to make decisions about her own body, appeared to be a perfect candidate for Ninth Amendment analysis.
However, in a deliberate choice, the Court in Roe grounded the right to an abortion not in the Ninth Amendment, but in the concept of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This move was telling. It signaled a preference for a different, though equally controversial, constitutional tool.
This pattern of “principled avoidance” reveals a deep institutional anxiety within the Court about the Ninth Amendment. The amendment’s open-ended language—protecting “other” rights “retained by the people”—has led some to fear it’s a boundless invitation for judges to invent new rights based on their own “personal and private notions.”
The late Judge Robert Bork famously called it a constitutional “inkblot,” a provision so vague that its meaning is lost to history and should therefore be ignored by judges. This view reflects a fear that relying on the Ninth would unleash “untrammeled judicial activism” and undermine the Court’s legitimacy.
The Battle for Meaning: Unlocking the “Inkblot”
The Central Mystery
The Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold rescued the Ninth Amendment from obscurity but also created a profound intellectual challenge. If the amendment protects “other” rights “retained by the people,” what exactly are those rights? And how are we to identify them?
This central mystery has fueled decades of intense scholarly debate. The controversy was famously crystallized by Judge Robert Bork, who, during his contentious Supreme Court nomination hearings in 1987, compared the Ninth Amendment to an inkblot on the Constitution. He argued that its original meaning was unknowable, and for a judge to try to enforce it would be like guessing at what was under the ink.
Bork’s provocative dismissal galvanized a generation of constitutional scholars who took it as a challenge. They delved into the historical record—the ratification debates, the writings of the Founders, and early constitutional commentary—in a quest to decipher the phrase “rights…retained by the people.”
This academic quest wasn’t merely an abstract exercise; it represented a high-stakes test of originalism, the theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to adhere to the original public meaning of the text.
If the meaning of a constitutional provision like the Ninth Amendment was truly lost, it would be a significant blow to the originalist project. Conversely, if a clear meaning could be recovered, it would be a major victory.
Competing Models of Interpretation
Since the 1980s, legal scholars have developed at least five competing “originalist” models to explain what the Ninth Amendment was intended to mean. Each offers a different answer to the question of what “rights” are being protected.
| Interpretive Model | Core Question & Answer: What are the “other rights retained by the people”? | Key Proponents | Practical Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Law Rights | The rights that people already possessed under their individual state constitutions and common law at the time of the founding. | Russell Caplan | Offers little to no protection against federal power, as these rights could be preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause. Largely a historical artifact with no modern judicial force. |
| Residual Rights / Federalism | The “residual” rights that are the inverse of the federal government’s enumerated powers. A right exists where a power has not been delegated. | Thomas McAffee, Kurt Lash | Functions as a rule of construction to interpret federal powers narrowly. A right is protected by showing the government lacks the power to infringe it. Closely tied to the Tenth Amendment and the principle of federalism. |
| Collective Rights | The rights held by “the people” as a collective political body, such as the right to alter or abolish government, or the right to local self-government and revolution. | Akhil Amar | Protects majoritarian or popular sovereignty rights, not necessarily counter-majoritarian individual rights that a person could assert against a democratic majority. Has limited application in modern individual rights cases. |
| Individual Natural Rights | The inherent, pre-governmental rights of all individuals (e.g., life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) that are not granted by government but are merely recognized by it. | Randy Barnett | Protects a broad sphere of individual liberty. Requires the government to justify any restriction on freedom. This is the most expansive and judicially active interpretation, empowering courts to protect unenumerated rights. |
The emergence of these different models can be seen in two ways. A skeptic might argue that the existence of five different “original” meanings proves that originalism is indeterminate and that the amendment’s meaning is indeed lost, as Bork claimed.
However, proponents of originalism see this as intellectual progress. They argue that models are proposed and then tested against the accumulating historical evidence. Over time, some models are disproven, while others gain stronger support.
Many scholars now believe the evidence strongly contradicts the “State Law Rights” model and provides robust support for a combination of the “Federalism” and “Individual Natural Rights” models.
The Individual Natural Rights Model
The most influential and judicially potent of these theories is the “Individual Natural Rights” model, championed most prominently by legal scholar Randy Barnett. This interpretation connects the Ninth Amendment directly to the core philosophy of the American Revolution, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
This philosophy holds that rights aren’t gifts from the government. They are “unalienable” and pre-exist any government. When people form a society, they don’t surrender all of their rights; they “retain” most of them and delegate only specific, limited powers to the government for the purpose of securing those rights.
The Ninth Amendment, in this view, is the constitutional embodiment of this principle.
From this foundation, Barnett proposes a powerful rule of construction he calls the “presumption of liberty.” This theory argues that the Ninth Amendment requires courts to approach government action with a default presumption in favor of liberty.
A citizen should be free to engage in any activity that doesn’t harm others, and if the government wishes to restrict that liberty, the burden of proof is on the government. It must demonstrate that its restriction is both necessary and proper to carry out one of its enumerated powers.
This approach is revolutionary because it flips the normal script of a constitutional challenge. Instead of the citizen having to prove that they possess a specific, recognized right, the government would have to justify its interference with the citizen’s general sphere of liberty.
This would give the Ninth Amendment a significant role in protecting individual freedom without requiring judges to create an exhaustive list of every unenumerated right.
The Ninth Amendment Today
Bodily Autonomy and Reproductive Rights
For decades, the debate over the Ninth Amendment was largely confined to academic journals and law school classrooms. However, the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, has thrust the Ninth Amendment back into the center of national legal debate.
The majority opinion in Dobbs was based on a specific method of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court concluded that the right to an abortion wasn’t protected because it wasn’t “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history or tradition” at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.
This historical test has led legal scholars and advocates to explore other constitutional avenues for protecting individual liberties, and many are now looking to the Ninth Amendment as a “better path.”
The argument is that the Dobbs historical test is specific to the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of “liberty” and doesn’t apply to the Ninth Amendment’s protection of “retained” rights.
A right “retained by the people” under the Ninth Amendment, these scholars argue, doesn’t need to be “deeply rooted” in 19th-century legal codes to be valid. Instead, it’s an inherent, natural right—like the right to make personal decisions about one’s own body, or “bodily autonomy”—that the people never surrendered to the government in the first place.
This reframes the debate entirely. Under a Ninth Amendment analysis, the question isn’t whether a right was recognized by 19th-century laws, but whether it’s a fundamental aspect of personal liberty that the government has no legitimate power to infringe.
This line of reasoning has the potential to make the Ninth Amendment a powerful shield for protecting not only reproductive rights but a wide range of personal choices related to health, family, and self-determination.
State Constitutions as a Line of Defense
The legacy of the Ninth Amendment extends beyond the federal Constitution. In a development that is gaining increasing attention, thirty-three state constitutions contain their own versions of the Ninth Amendment, often referred to as “Baby Ninths.”
For example, the Ohio Constitution states: “This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” The Alabama Constitution of 1819 was the first to include such a provision, and others followed over the next two centuries.
Historically, these state-level provisions have been as neglected by state courts as the federal Ninth Amendment was by the Supreme Court. However, in the wake of federal court decisions that have narrowed the scope of federal rights, lawyers and advocates are increasingly turning to these Baby Ninths as an independent source of protection for individual liberties.
They argue that these clauses can be used to protect unenumerated rights at the state level—such as the right to earn a living, the right to privacy, or the right to raise one’s family—regardless of how federal courts interpret the U.S. Constitution.
This opens up a vital new front in the ongoing effort to safeguard fundamental rights, grounding them in the specific texts and traditions of the individual states.
The Enduring Principle
The importance of the Ninth Amendment transcends its complex legal history and the intricate scholarly debates it inspires. Its greatest significance lies in the profound philosophical principle it enshrines at the heart of the American legal system.
The Ninth Amendment is a permanent, textual declaration that in the United States, rights don’t come from the government. They aren’t granted by the graciousness of the state or by the words on a piece of parchment. Rights are inherent in human beings. They are “retained by the people” when they consent to form a government.
The Constitution doesn’t create liberty; it’s a document created by “We the People” to secure the liberties they already possess. The Bill of Rights, therefore, isn’t an exhaustive catalog of every freedom a person enjoys. It’s a list of some of the most essential rights, enumerated, as Madison’s original draft said, “merely for greater caution.”
The Ninth Amendment is the ultimate safeguard of this principle. It stands as a perpetual warning against the seductive but dangerous idea that our rights are limited to those the government chooses to recognize.
It ensures that the Constitution is always read as a charter of limited government power and boundless human freedom, a shield for the unwritten, unenumerated, and unalienable rights of the people.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.