| Engblom v. Carey | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Full case name | Engblom and Palmer v. Carey, et al |
| Argued | March 1st 1982 |
| Decided | May 3 1982 |
| Citation | 677 F.2d 957 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent history | 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983) |
| Holding | |
| Quartering state-controlled National Guard soldiers in apartments during peacetime violates the Third Amendment rights of the tenants. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Wilfred Feinberg (Chief), Walter R. Mansfield, Irving Kaufman |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Mansfield, joined by Feinberg |
| Dissent | Kaufman |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. III, XIV | |
Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), is a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreting the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution for the first time. It is notable for being one of the few significant court decisions to interpret the Third Amendment prohibition of quartering soldiers in homes during peacetime without the owner's consent.[1] The dispute covered the housing of the National Guard in worker dorms while they were acting as prison workers during a strike.
In a 2–1 decision by a three-judge panel, Engblom articulated three principles that apply to challenges under the Third Amendment. First: national guardsmen are considered soldiers for the purposes of a Third Amendment claim. This holding extends Third Amendment protections beyond federal armed forces, such as the army, to include the state-regulated militia. Second: the Third Amendment is incorporated and thus applies to individual states as well as the federal government. This holding extends Third Amendment protections beyond federal use of the National Guard to include state use of the National Guard. Third: the protections of the Third Amendment apply beyond fee simple homeownership. This holding interprets the Third Amendment as protecting those who have general control over access to a property. The panel determined that the correctional officers were tenants (having such general control) and remanded the case back to the district court. However, the lower court ultimately ruled in the defendants' favor based on qualified immunity.
The Third Amendment remains one of the least cited sections of the Constitution in United States case law, and it has never provided the primary basis for a Supreme Court decision.[2][3] As a decision of the Second Circuit, Engblom v. Carey is only binding precedent in New York, Vermont, and Connecticut, but its general implications have been considered by legal scholars.