The idea that slavery could ever return in the United States may sound unthinkable, yet American constitutional law leaves gaps that, if exploited, could allow extreme possibilities. With the Supreme Court shifting further to the right in recent years, the once-settled Thirteenth Amendment is not as untouchable as many assume.

Article IV and the Legacy of Prigg v. Pennsylvania

The Constitution’s Article IV, Section 2 once underpinned fugitive slave laws, obligating states to cooperate in the return of escaped enslaved people. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the Supreme Court concluded that enforcing such laws was primarily a state power, not a federal one. This precedent emphasized state sovereignty even on an issue as fundamental as human freedom.

If that reasoning were revived under a narrow reading of the Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery could be treated as a limited restriction—leaving individual states significant discretion to interpret its reach. In effect, the federal government’s ability to enforce anti-slavery protections could be weakened.

The Rightward Shift of the Court

This danger has gained urgency because of the Court’s ideological trajectory. Over the last decade, and particularly through the appointments of three justices by President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court has become the most conservative in generations.

The Court has demonstrated its willingness to overturn long-standing precedent and return authority to the states. In Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), it ended nearly 50 years of federal protection for abortion rights. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), it dramatically expanded gun rights using a rigid “history and tradition” test. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), it dismantled affirmative action in higher education.

Each of these rulings reflects a Court that does not hesitate to narrow rights and empower states, even at the expense of federal protections once considered permanent.

Federal Power and Its Limits

Under the Constitution, powers are divided among Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the states. Congress is tasked with enforcing constitutional amendments, including the Thirteenth. Yet if the Court were to revisit Prigg’s logic and reaffirm slavery (or forced labor) as primarily a matter of state authority, Congress’s enforcement powers could be struck down as unconstitutional “overreach.”

In such a scenario, federal protections would weaken while state discretion would expand—a dynamic that has already been visible in areas like reproductive rights and voting regulation.

The Exception Clause: Slavery by Another Name

It’s important to remember that the Thirteenth Amendment itself contains an exception: slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” That single phrase has allowed widespread prison labor across the country, often under conditions indistinguishable from forced labor.

Real-World Examples Today

• California wildfire crews: Inmates are recruited and compelled to fight dangerous wildfires for as little as \$1 an hour, often without the same safety gear or long-term benefits given to professional firefighters. These programs save the state millions of dollars, but critics argue they exploit incarcerated people as disposable labor.
• Alabama’s prison strikes: In 2022, incarcerated workers in Alabama staged a massive strike against being forced into unpaid or underpaid labor. Protesters described it as “modern slavery,” directly pointing to the Thirteenth Amendment’s loophole.
• Louisiana’s Angola Prison: Built on the site of a former slave plantation, Angola Prison still uses incarcerated workers to pick crops under the watch of armed guards. Many inmates earn just a few cents per hour, reinforcing the sense that slavery has continued under another name.

Several states—including Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee, Vermont, and Oregon—have recently passed ballot initiatives to explicitly ban slavery and involuntary servitude in their state constitutions. Yet even in those states, prison labor persists under new legal justifications.

This reality underscores the broader point: slavery never fully disappeared—it was reshaped and relabeled.

The Lesson of Precedent

No one expects slavery to return in its historic form. But the broader lesson is that rights can shrink under judicial interpretation. Dobbs proved that even long-standing guarantees may not be permanent when the Court adopts a different philosophy. If the Thirteenth Amendment were ever read narrowly, states could attempt to pass laws permitting new forms of coerced labor, testing the boundaries of federal power.

Slavery was supposedly eradicated in 1865, but the exception clause keeps its shadow alive in U.S. prisons. Combined with an emboldened, conservative Court that favors state sovereignty, the constitutional floor beneath freedom is less solid than it appears.

Conclusion

The possibility of slavery’s literal return may remain remote, but the constitutional mechanics for weakening the Thirteenth Amendment exist. In a legal landscape where precedent falls quickly and rights are reframed through history and tradition, Americans cannot afford to assume that hard-won liberties are immune from erosion.

The lesson is chilling but clear: the security of freedom depends not only on the Constitution’s words, but on how a shifting Court chooses to read them. And with prison labor already testing the limits of the Thirteenth Amendment, the line between freedom and coercion is far thinner than most would like to believe.