The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on 15 December 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, enumerates several distinct protections against the power of the federal government in criminal and civil proceedings. Its provisions include the requirement of grand jury indictment for serious criminal charges, the prohibition on double jeopardy, the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, the guarantee of due process of law, and the requirement that the government pay just compensation when it takes private property for public use. The amendment applies to the federal government directly and has been incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The amendment contains five principal clauses, each addressing a distinct legal concern:

• Grand Jury Clause: Requires that prosecutions for capital or “otherwise infamous” crimes be initiated by a grand jury, except in cases arising in the military during wartime or public danger.
• Double Jeopardy Clause: Prohibits trying a person twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, and bars multiple punishments for the same offense.
• Self-Incrimination Clause: Protects individuals from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves - the source of the common invocation “pleading the Fifth.”
• Due Process Clause: Prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• Takings Clause: Prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

Each of the amendment's major clauses carries active legal and scholarly controversy.

The self-incrimination clause has generated debate over its scope in the modern era. Courts have extended its protections to police interrogations through Miranda v. Arizona (1966), a ruling that remains contested on originalist grounds. Whether the privilege extends to compelled decryption of digital devices - requiring a suspect to provide a password or biometric access - is an open and actively litigated question. Some courts have ruled such compulsion is testimonial and thus protected; others have found it is not. See the debate page.

The Takings Clause became particularly contentious after the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), which held that transfer of private property to another private party for economic development could constitute a permissible “public use.” Critics argued the ruling effectively nullified the constitutional limit on eminent domain; defenders maintained it reflected appropriate deference to legislative judgment. See the debate page.

Substantive due process - the doctrine that the Due Process Clause protects unenumerated rights from government interference - is among the most disputed concepts in American constitutional law. Originalists and textualists generally argue the clause is procedural only; others contend it provides a textual basis for rights the Court has recognized, including privacy and certain liberty interests. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization revisited this doctrine directly. See the debate page.

There is broad legal consensus on the core procedural applications of the Fifth Amendment within established case law, though that consensus is itself contested by originalist and textualist scholars who dispute the interpretive foundations of many landmark rulings. No single legal consensus page currently exists for this topic.

• Originalist/Textualist View-viewpoint - The amendment should be interpreted according to the original public meaning of its text at ratification. Many modern applications, including substantive due process and Miranda warnings, lack legitimate grounding in that original meaning.
• Living Constitutionalist View-viewpoint - The amendment's principles should be interpreted in light of evolving legal, social, and technological circumstances. Courts should adapt protections to contexts the framers could not have anticipated.
• Libertarian/Strong Rights View-viewpoint - The amendment's protections should be interpreted broadly and enforced robustly against government power, particularly the self-incrimination and takings clauses.
• Prosecutorial/Law Enforcement View-viewpoint - Broad readings of the amendment's protections can impede legitimate law enforcement functions; the clause should be interpreted narrowly where public safety interests are at stake.

• Fifth Amendment - History
• Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination - Debate
• Fifth Amendment Takings (Kelo) - Debate
• Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process - Debate
• Bill of Rights
• Fourteenth Amendment
• Miranda Rights
• Eminent Domain
• Due Process

1. U.S. Const. amend. V.
2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
3. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
4. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
5. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (incorporating Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause against states via Fourteenth Amendment).
6. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) (incorporating Takings Clause against states).