The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is often referred to as the "forgotten amendment" due to its relative obscurity compared to other constitutional protections. Yet this brief amendment—which protects citizens from being forced to quarter soldiers in their homes during peacetime without consent—has an important historical context and continues to have legal relevance today, albeit limited.
The Text and Historical Context
The Third Amendment states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
This amendment arose directly from American colonial grievances against British rule. During the 1760s and 1770s, British authorities enforced the Quartering Acts, which required American colonists to provide housing and supplies to British troops. This practice was deeply resented as both an economic burden and an invasion of privacy. The quartering of troops became so contentious that it was listed as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence.
After gaining independence, the Founding Fathers included this protection in the Bill of Rights to prevent the new federal government from imposing similar burdens on American citizens. The amendment reflects both practical concerns about property rights and deeper philosophical beliefs about the limits of government power.
Limited Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Unlike other constitutional amendments, the Third Amendment has rarely been directly litigated before the Supreme Court. The Court has never decided a case solely on Third Amendment grounds, making it unique among the Bill of Rights provisions.
The most significant mention of the Third Amendment in Supreme Court jurisprudence came in the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). While the case primarily addressed privacy rights in the context of contraception, Justice William O. Douglas cited the Third Amendment as one of several constitutional provisions that create "penumbras" or zones of privacy that the government cannot intrude upon.
Lower Court Cases
While Supreme Court cases are scarce, a few lower court decisions have directly addressed Third Amendment claims:
Engblom v. Carey (1982)
The most notable Third Amendment case is Engblom v. Carey, decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Prison guards in New York went on strike, and the state used National Guard troops to replace them, housing the troops in dormitories usually occupied by the striking guards. The guards sued, claiming a Third Amendment violation.
The court made two important rulings:
- The Third Amendment applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment
- The protection extends beyond traditional homeowners to those with a legal interest in the property, such as the prison guards with their staff housing
Although the guards ultimately lost the case on other grounds, this ruling represented a significant interpretation of the amendment.
Mitchell v. City of Henderson (2013)
In this Nevada case, a family claimed police violated their Third Amendment rights when officers occupied their homes without permission during an investigation. The court dismissed the claim, ruling that police officers are not "soldiers" within the meaning of the amendment.
Modern Relevance and Interpretation
Despite few direct applications, legal scholars see continuing relevance in the Third Amendment:
- It stands as a historical reminder of the Founders' concerns about military power in civilian life
- It contributes to broader constitutional doctrines about privacy rights
- It reaffirms the importance of property rights against government intrusion
Some legal theorists argue that the amendment could gain new relevance in scenarios involving:
- Government-mandated quartering during emergencies
- Technological surveillance that effectively "quarters" government agents in homes virtually
- Military or police occupation of private property during civil unrest
Conclusion
The Third Amendment may lack the frequent application of its constitutional siblings, but it remains a meaningful part of American constitutional law. Its principles—respect for the home, limitations on military power in civilian life, and protection of property rights—continue to influence legal thought. Though rarely invoked, it stands as a testament to the enduring American value of keeping government power, particularly military authority, in check.