Civil liberties and civil rights describe two ways the United States legal system protects the interests of individuals. Though often used interchangeably, the two terms are distinct.
The term “civil liberties” stands for the constitutional guarantees of freedom from governmental oppression and tyranny. The term “civil rights” refers to a variety of laws protecting citizens from unequal or discriminatory treatment based on certain characteristics, including race, religion, gender and country of origin.
In short, civil liberties protect an individual’s personal freedoms, whereas civil rights advance specific standards of equality.
The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, which safeguards an individual’s right to express opinions without government censorship, is a textbook civil liberty. The Fair Housing Act’s prohibition of discrimination against prospective renters and homebuyers on the basis of “race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status or religion” is an example of a civil right.
Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights
| Civil Liberties | Civil Rights | |
| What is its primary purpose? | Protect against an oppressive government authority. | Protect against discriminatory treatment. |
| What is the legal definition? | “Civil liberties are freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (primarily from the First Amendment). They are natural rights which are inherent to each person. While they are commonly referred to as ‘rights,’ civil liberties actually operate as restraints on how the government can treat its citizens,” according to Cornell Law School’s legal definition. | “A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of the individual’s membership in a particular group or class,” according to Cornell Law School’s legal definition. |
| What are the main sources of law? | The primary source of civil liberties is the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. | The origin of most civil rights is in the Civil Rights Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments), case law, and legislation at the local, state and federal levels. |
| What are some examples? | Civil liberties include the right to marry, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to a fair trial. | Civil rights ensure a citizen is not discriminated against in certain contexts, such as employment, housing and education, on the basis of a protected characteristic, like race, religion, gender, age, ability or country of origin. |
| Who can be held responsible for any violations? | Only a government entity can be held responsible for a violation of a civil liberty, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. | Unlike civil liberties, civil rights laws can hold individuals, as well as government actors, responsible for any violations. Liability depends on the scope of the law and the discriminatory conduct in question. |
A key difference between civil liberties and civil rights is who can be held responsible for violations. Civil liberties violations require state action, meaning that the government must act in a way that deprives an individual of his or her civil liberties in order to bring a lawsuit. The Bill of Rights, which lays out these civil liberties, generally applies to both the federal and state governments.
A private employer who fires an employee for speaking out about a matter of public concern cannot be found liable for violating a civil liberty. However, if a government employee is fired for the same reason, that employee would be able to sue on the grounds that their speech was protected by the First Amendment.
Civil rights, unlike civil liberties, can be violated by private citizens and government actors alike. For example, if the private employer refuses to hire someone because of the candidate’s race, religion, gender or other protected characteristic, the employer has committed a civil rights violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Limits of Civil Liberties and Rights
Although both civil rights and civil liberties have long histories, the strict separation between the two terms is a relatively modern development – and a sometimes contested one.
Perhaps the best-known example of a contested civil liberty is an individual’s ability to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Even though it might seem to be protected under freedom of speech in the First Amendment, the government still might punish the individual for endangering the public.
Civil rights and civil liberties may “make it sound like they are beyond the government to regulate,” says Johnny Parker, a professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law. “But there are no rights that are free from government interference.”
Parker suggests that defining civil rights as laws designed to create equality or treat all citizens equally may lead to further misunderstandings.
“Every law written treats people dissimilarly by their very nature,” Parker says, “No law can treat everybody alike. There will always be somebody left out or harmed by every law.”
For example, there are laws that allow the sale of cold wine and beer – but not liquor – in supermarkets. Just because the law disadvantages liquor distributors does not mean they have suffered a civil rights violation.
Civil Rights vs. Nonfundamental Civil Interests
Just because a law claims to create a civil right or civil liberty, it doesn’t mean that right will be vindicated in practice.
“You can have certain rights outlined in black and white, in ink,” Parker says. But without the full protection of legal remedies – ranging from monetary damages to military enforcement – there is no civil right, only a nonfundamental civil interest.
A nonfundamental civil interest gives individuals less legal protection and fewer avenues for redressing any violations. If a law creates only a civil interest, a plaintiff can still establish the defendant broke the law, but the remedies available to enforce that law may be far more limited.
