Third Amendment to the US Constitution

[Una_Persson]

Greetings all.

I am curious as to whether there has been any case in a US court in which a decision has referenced the little-known Third Amendment to the US Constitution:

“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.”

The only reference I have found is the following:

"In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d.
per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983), there has been no judicial explication at all. "

Since it is part of the Bill of Rights, it was apparently considered an important and vital issue by the founding fathers at one time. It seems curious in today’s context, however.

Because there appears to be several people of a sharp legal mindset on this board, I humbly submit this question to the experts to ask for further information. If this question more properly belongs in MPSIMS, I beg forgiveness.

Respectfully,
Anthracite

---

The Prince: “Did you kill Jahamaraj Jah?”
Lady: “Yes.”
The Prince: “My Gods! Why?”
Lady: “His existence offended me.”

[David_B]

It was an important issue then, if I recall my history classes correctly, because the British had a tendency to do just what this Amendment forbade – walk into town and quarter their soldiers in whatever houses were handy. The new government wanted to make sure that didn’t happen again.

[Una_Persson]

I would like to amend my Original Post, if that is an acceptable action in this forum.

I would like to know if someone can find details, or explain exactly what was curious about the referenced case:

"In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d. per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 983), there has been no judicial explication at all. "

I don’t seem to be able to find any other information about this case. If anyone could elaborate, I would be grateful.

Anthracite

---

The Prince: “Did you kill Jahamaraj Jah?”
Lady: “Yes.”
The Prince: “My Gods! Why?”
Lady: “His existence offended me.”

[bibliophage]

"This amendment seems to have been thought necessary. It does not appear to have been the subject of judicial exposition; and it is so thoroughly in accord with all our ideas, that further comment is unnecessary."

(Justice Samuel F. Miller in The Constitution (1893). Quoted in Understanding the Constitution by J.W. Peltason.

The site The Embarrassing Second Amendment (and the many mirror sites) has:

Engblom grew out of a “statewide strike of correction officers, when they were evicted from their facility-residence… and members of the National Guard were housed in their residences without their consent.” The district court had initially granted summary judgment for the defendants in a suit brought by the officers claiming a deprivation of their right under the Third Amendment. The Second Circuit, however, reversed on the ground that it could not “say that as a matter of law appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment,” Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 964 (2d Cir. 1982). The District Court on remand held that, as the Third Amendment rights had not been clearly established at the time of the strike, the defendants were protected by a qualified immunity, and it is this opinion that was upheld by the Second Circuit.

---

Work is the curse of the drinking classes. (Oscar Wilde)

[Una_Persson]

Great info. Many thnks, bibliophage.

[Una_Persson]

Originally posted by Anthracite:
Great info. Many thnks, bibliophage.

That was, many thanks.

[DSYoungEsq]

The following commentary can be found here: U.S. Senate Constitutional Law Survey

__________ THIRD AMENDMENT
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.
There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment,
which was obviously one guarantee of the preference for the civilian
over the military.\1
\1\In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carey, 677
F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d.
per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983), there has been no judicial
explication at all.