Third Amendment - Quartering of Soldiers
Original Text
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.
In Plain Language
The government can't force you to house soldiers in your home during peacetime without your consent. In wartime, it can only do so by law passed by Congress. The Third Amendment addressed a specific colonial grievance; it reaches courts very rarely today.
Historical Significance
British soldiers forced colonists to house and feed troops before the Revolution. The Quartering Act of 1765 made this official policy. This amendment ended that practice permanently.
Check your understanding
Key Concepts0/6
Historical Context
Parliament passed the Quartering Act of 1765 requiring colonists to provide housing and supplies for British troops. The 1774 Quartering Act, part of what colonists called the Intolerable Acts, let royal governors commandeer private homes and buildings. The Declaration of Independence listed "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" as a grievance against King George III. The Third Amendment addressed both: no peacetime quartering without owner consent; wartime quartering only as Congress specifically authorizes.
Case law under the Third Amendment is nearly nonexistent. No Supreme Court ruling has ever directly interpreted it on its merits. In Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982), the Second Circuit held that National Guard members are "soldiers" under the amendment and that the protection applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment—but the underlying dispute settled before full resolution. In Mitchell v. City of Henderson (9th Cir. 2015), a federal court ruled that police officers are not soldiers, rejecting a Third Amendment claim from a Nevada family whose home police occupied during a standoff.
How This Shows Up Today
The Third Amendment rarely reaches courts because no American government has quartered troops in private homes since the founding era. Justice Douglas cited it in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as one of several provisions whose "penumbras" support a constitutional right to privacy—a reading that has never commanded a Supreme Court majority on its own terms. When Henderson, Nevada police forcibly occupied Ron Mitchell's home for 16 hours during a neighbor standoff in 2011, his family sued under the Third Amendment. The federal court rejected that claim—police aren't soldiers—but allowed their Fourth Amendment claim to proceed. The Fourth Amendment, not the Third, does most of the constitutional work when government physically occupies private space.
Rarely litigated - most obscure amendment
Cited in privacy right foundations (Griswold v. Connecticut)
Engblom v. Carey (1982) - National Guard in prison guard strike
Discussion Questions3
Loading questions...
Preparing comprehension questions for this section