Poor Number 3

The Third Amendment is far and away one of the least implemented amendments within the Bill of Rights. I wish I didn’t have to blog about such a useless amendment, but I promised that I would outline each of the ten amendments within the Bill of Rights. I am nothing if not a man of my word.

An oft forgotten piece of legislation, the Third Amendment states that “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.” Simply put, soldiers can’t live in your house forcibly during peace. Even during war, the government must lawfully develop some sort of process in order to house the soldiers.

Courtesy of the Constitution Center

Given the political climate out of which the Bill of Rights originated, it is easy to see why such an amendment became part of our legal code. The oh so tyrannical British from whom we were in the process of freeing ourselves had in no way abided by a similar policy. Redcoats often stormed homes for shelter without any of this “consent of the owner” nonsense.

Considering how esoteric and inapplicable this amendment is ever since we became independent, it isn’t hard to believe that there haven’t been any Supreme Court cases decided in conjunction with the Third Amendment. However, there has been one somewhat major case regarding the Third Amendment, decided by the US Circuit Court of Appeals: Engblom v. Carey. Even the name Engblom sounds somewhat ridiculous.

In this case, New York State correctional officers were on strike, and National Guardsmen filled their places in some roles. At more than one location, the striking employees were evicted as the guardsmen came to take their responsibility and use their housing as well.

Engblom, the original prison worker, claimed that the government issued National Guardsmen illegally quartered in her home, which she was a tenant of while working for the prison. The state, argued under the name Carey (the then governor Hugh Carey), asserted that because the State evicted Engblom on account that she was striking, they had the right to quarter their “soldiers” (loosely defined) in the former residence.

The state ended up with the worse argument. The court recognized that Engblom’s Third Amendment rights were infringed upon. However, Engblom still lost the case due to a technicality on qualified immunity. This principle states that the defendants, acting on behalf of the state, were immune to any illegal actions that they committed unknowingly.

Even when the Third Amendment gets called in to play, it still doesn’t even really matter. What a rough life for good ole number 3.

While little was established by this case except that the government has an incredibly poor understanding of what a soldier is, there is one important lesson – technicalities matter. Who cares how strong your case is – getting a case decided for some minor wrongdoing involved or a little known principle such as qualified immunity can be a deal breaker. Law is a game of inches.