Constitutional Shield Against Tyrannical Troop Quartering

A critical provision within our nation’s foundational document, often overlooked in contemporary discourse despite its relevance today, offers vital protection against an age-old form of oppression. The Third Amendment stands as a testament to the Founders’ awareness and rejection of potentially tyrannical governmental powers.

This amendment clearly 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.” It’s not immediately obvious from this text that the term ‘Soldier’ encompasses National Guard members. Yet crucially, legal interpretation confirms it does.

Echoes Of Past Tyranny

Recall the specific grievances listed in our Declaration of Independence: protesting the “Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” under King George III. Among these abuses was the egregious violation of personal liberty through the “quartering [of] large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.” It is precisely this potential tyranny that the Third Amendment exists to prevent, even in peacetime.

A Landmark Constitutional Interpretation

The significance and applicability of this amendment were addressed for the first time by a federal court regarding National Guardsmen. In Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), New York state correction officers found their unit residences used to house National Guard members, without consent or proper legal grounds.

This case represented a novel constitutional challenge: asking a federal court to invalidate the peacetime quartering of troops ‘in any house, without the consent of the Owner’, thereby directly invoking the Third Amendment. The trial court dismissed this claim on technicalities regarding property rights, effectively sidestepping its fundamental purpose.

The Court Of Appeals’ Reversal

However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, holding that summary judgment was inappropriate for the defendants “on the ground that issues as to material facts” were present concerning the Third Amendment claim. This ruling acknowledged that the Third Amendment applies equally to National Guardsmen and U.S. Army soldiers.

The court began by noting the rarity with which the Third Amendment is invoked in federal courts, especially given this was a first for its interpretation regarding National Guard members: “We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the National Guardsmen are ‘Soldiers’ within the meaning of the Third Amendment…”

Rejecting Formalistic Constructions

Crucially, the Court rejected attempts to narrowly construe the amendment based solely on legal technicalities or specific types of property ownership. Such formalism was explicitly discarded: “We reject such a formalistic construction for the same reasons that it has been rejected in analogous contexts.”

The decision expanded the protection beyond mere fee simple homeownership, recognizing instead interests associated with lawful occupation or possession – rights fundamental to any society governed by constitutional principles.

A Foundational Right In Question

Ultimately, however, upon remand, the trial court ruled that these correction officers’ Third Amendment rights were not ‘clearly established’ at the time. This led to a grant of qualified immunity for the defendants on appeal. Despite this procedural setback, the Engblom case itself confirmed what is far too often forgotten: our Bill of Rights protects citizens from the very threat described in the Declaration.

The Right To Exclude

Therefore, we stand reaffirmed that no soldier – including members of our National Guard – has the inherent right to be quartered on private property without consent. This protection remains a vital component of constitutional liberty, even as its application faces legal technicalities designed perhaps more for defense than for upholding its core purpose.

It is imperative citizens understand and appreciate this foundational right against governmental intrusion into their homes and privacy, safeguarding it just as fiercely as our forefathers did nearly three centuries ago.