Third Amendment (Supreme Court interpretations)
The Third Amendment of the United States Constitution addresses the quartering of soldiers in private homes, primarily aimed at preventing the forcible housing of troops without the owner's consent. Although its literal application has been rare since its inception, the most notable instance occurred during the Civil War when property owners were compelled to support soldiers. In modern legal discourse, the Third Amendment has not frequently been invoked; however, it has played a role in discussions of privacy rights. A significant case, Engblom v. Carey (1982), highlighted the amendment's relevance when corrections officers successfully argued for their right to privacy in living quarters provided by their employer, citing the Third Amendment.
The Third Amendment is often referenced in broader discussions of constitutional protections, with courts typically relying on other amendments, such as the Fourth Amendment, for privacy rights. In cases like Katz v. United States (1967) and State v. Coburn (1974), the Third Amendment has been acknowledged in passing, illustrating its role in the overarching framework of individual rights rather than as a primary source for legal arguments. This indicates a continued, albeit limited, significance of the Third Amendment in contemporary legal interpretations.
Third Amendment (Supreme Court interpretations)
Date: 1791
Description: Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and part of the Bill of Rights that denies quarter in private homes to soldiers during times of peace.
Significance: Contemporary use of the amendment by the Supreme Court has been simply as a reference exemplifying constitutional protections of property-based privacy rights against certain governmental intrusions.
The last time the Third Amendment had serious literal application was during the Civil War (1861-1865), when property owners were made to house, feed, and generally support both Union and Confederate soldiers. Today, such literal application is rare. However, in Engblom v. Carey (1982), a federal appellate court held that striking corrections officers had a lawful interest in their living quarters, located at the prison and provided in the course of their employment, which entitled them to a legitimate expectation of privacy protected by the Third Amendment.
For development of privacy rights, the Supreme Court usually relied on provisions of other amendments such as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and used the Third Amendment simply as a nominal reference to general constitutional protections. For example, in a footnote to Katz v. United States (1967), a landmark decision regarding Fourth Amendment privacy rights, Justice Potter Stewart merely listed the Third Amendment in his enumeration of constitutional protections.
This contemporary reliance is typified by State v. Coburn (1974), in which the Montana supreme court cited the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as the “umbrella of constitutional protections” afforded individual privacy.