Third Amendment — Quartering of Soldiers
The Third Amendment provides: "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." This is the Constitution's most rarely litigated amendment — it has never been the subject of a Supreme Court decision on the merits. The amendment was a direct response to one of the colonists' most resented grievances against Britain: the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774, which required American colonists to house and feed British soldiers in their private homes. The Declaration of Independence listed "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" as one of King George III's abuses. The Third Amendment eliminates this practice absolutely in peacetime (no quartering without the owner's consent) and limits it even in wartime (quartering only "in a manner to be prescribed by law" — meaning Congress must authorize it by statute). While the Third Amendment has virtually no direct modern application — the government has not attempted to quarter soldiers in private homes since the 18th century — it has indirect significance as evidence of the Constitution's broader commitment to the privacy and sanctity of the home. Justice Douglas cited the Third Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as one of the Bill of Rights provisions that creates "penumbras" of privacy, alongside the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. The Second Circuit's decision in Engblom v. Carey (1982) — the only significant Third Amendment case — held that the amendment was incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to National Guard troops housed in striking correction officers' residences.
Current Law (2026)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Constitutional provision | Third Amendment (1791) |
| Peacetime | No quartering of soldiers without the owner's consent — absolute prohibition |
| Wartime | Quartering permitted only "in a manner to be prescribed by law" — requires congressional authorization |
| Incorporation | Assumed but not formally decided by the Supreme Court; the Second Circuit incorporated it in Engblom v. Carey (1982) |
| Supreme Court cases | None on the merits — the only amendment never directly interpreted by the Supreme Court |
| Significance | Evidence of constitutional commitment to home privacy; cited in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) privacy penumbras |
Legal Authority
- U.S. Constitution, Amend. III — "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"
- Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982) — Third Amendment incorporated against the states; National Guard troops quartered in striking correction officers' residential facilities violated the amendment
- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — Justice Douglas cited the Third Amendment as contributing to the "penumbras" of privacy in the Bill of Rights
How It Works
The Third Amendment creates two rules. In peacetime, quartering soldiers in private homes requires the owner's consent — an absolute right that cannot be overridden by military necessity or government order. In wartime, quartering is permitted but only "in a manner to be prescribed by law" — Congress must authorize it; the military cannot unilaterally commandeer private homes. The amendment's only significant judicial application is Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982), which arose when New York housed National Guard troops in the residential quarters of striking correction officers during a prison strike. The Second Circuit held that National Guard members called to active duty qualify as "soldiers" for Third Amendment purposes, and that the correction officers' residential units were their "houses" — the officers' Third Amendment rights had been violated.
The Third Amendment's most consequential modern role is not in quartering litigation (which essentially doesn't exist) but as evidence of the Constitution's structural commitment to home privacy. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Douglas identified "penumbras" of privacy emanating from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments — the Third Amendment's prohibition on quartering demonstrating that the Framers considered the home inviolate, the government powerless to inject itself into private residences. The amendment's near-total absence from litigation reflects its success: it solved a specific historical problem so completely — colonial grievances against being forced to house British soldiers — that the practice has not recurred. Some scholars have argued by analogy that mass government surveillance of homes should implicate the Third Amendment (essentially "quartering" government eyes and ears in your residence), but courts address surveillance under the Fourth Amendment instead.
How It Affects You
<!-- pria:personalize type="impact" -->If you're a homeowner wondering what the Third Amendment actually protects: The peacetime prohibition is absolute — no emergency, no military necessity, no executive order can compel you to house soldiers in your home without your consent. This right is not subject to balancing tests or reasonableness review; it is a flat prohibition. The only modern court case testing this boundary came in Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982), where New York housed National Guard troops in the residential quarters of striking correction officers during a prison strike — the Second Circuit found a Third Amendment violation, extending the amendment to state actors and to National Guard troops acting under state command. More recently, a Nevada family sued in Mitchell v. City of Henderson (D. Nev. 2015) when police occupied their home during a standoff with a neighbor — the district court dismissed the claim, holding that police officers are not "soldiers" within the Third Amendment's meaning. The practical takeaway: police (not soldiers) routinely use emergency authority to enter or occupy private property, and the Third Amendment does not constrain them. Your protections against police entry are in the Fourth Amendment.
If you're a privacy advocate or constitutional scholar following home privacy law: The Third Amendment's greatest modern significance is as structural evidence of the Constitution's commitment to the privacy of the home. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Douglas identified the Third, First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments as creating "penumbras" of privacy that together establish a constitutional right to private life. The Third Amendment contributed to that analysis precisely because it demonstrates the Framers' intent to make the home inviolate against government intrusion — not just free from unreasonable searches (Fourth Amendment) but free from the physical presence of government agents altogether. Some scholars argue that mass government surveillance — installing monitoring capabilities in home routers, smart devices, or communications systems — is the modern functional equivalent of quartering: the government places its observational capacity "inside" your home without your meaningful consent. Courts have analyzed surveillance under the Fourth Amendment rather than the Third, but the structural argument reflects the same principle: the government belongs outside your home's walls.
If you're in military service or studying military housing law: The Third Amendment defines the outer boundary of military housing authority — troops may be housed on government bases, barracks, and military installations, but not in private homes without consent. In practice, the amendment solved a specific historical problem so completely that it has never recurred: modern military housing is provided entirely through official facilities (on-base housing, Basic Allowance for Housing for off-base rental or ownership). The VA Home Loan Program (see VA Home Loan Program) helps veterans access private housing on their own terms — the government assists with financing, never by commandeering civilian residences. For National Guard members, the Engblom precedent establishes that you qualify as a "soldier" when federally or state activated, meaning your accommodation in private residences (including dormitory-style housing provided as part of employment) triggers Third Amendment protections.
If you're a legal researcher tracking unresolved constitutional questions: The Third Amendment is the only Bill of Rights provision that has never been directly interpreted on the merits by the Supreme Court — an extraordinary constitutional vacancy after 235 years. Engblom v. Carey (1982) remains the leading precedent. Key unresolved questions: Is the amendment formally incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? (The Second Circuit says yes; the Supreme Court has never decided.) Does it cover non-military government actors like police who occupy private property? (Mitchell says no for police.) Does it require intentionality, or does negligent quartering also trigger liability? Does it apply during domestic emergencies short of declared war — natural disasters, civil unrest, pandemic emergency measures? These questions remain live for any future scenario where government officials might attempt to commandeer private property for official personnel housing in crisis conditions.
<!-- /pria:personalize -->State Variations
The Third Amendment's incorporation status is uncertain:
- The Second Circuit incorporated it against the states in Engblom v. Carey (1982), but the Supreme Court has never formally addressed the question
- Most scholars assume the Third Amendment is incorporated — it is difficult to argue that freedom from quartering is not "fundamental"
- State constitutions may contain their own anti-quartering provisions
- The practical impact is minimal — no state has attempted to quarter soldiers in private homes
Implementing Regulations
This is a constitutional provision with no implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. Key judicial doctrine includes:
- Engblom v. Carey (2d Cir. 1982) — The only federal circuit court decision directly applying the Third Amendment on the merits; held that (1) the amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) National Guard members called to active duty qualify as "soldiers," and (3) residential facilities provided to correction officers as part of their employment are their "houses" — housing guardsmen there during a strike without consent violated the amendment
- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — The Supreme Court cited the Third Amendment as one of several Bill of Rights provisions whose "penumbras" and "emanations" give rise to a constitutional right to privacy; Justice Douglas identified the Third Amendment's prohibition on quartering as evidence that the Framers intended the home to be inviolate against government intrusion
- Mitchell v. City of Henderson (D. Nev. 2015) — A Nevada family alleged that police officers who commandeered their home during a neighbor's SWAT standoff violated the Third Amendment; the district court dismissed the claim, holding that police officers are not "soldiers" within the amendment's meaning; the ruling was not appealed and remains the most recent federal court treatment of a Third Amendment claim
Pending Legislation
No standalone legislation pending in the 119th Congress. See Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure for legislative activity related to home privacy and government intrusion.
Recent Developments
The Third Amendment remains the Constitution's quietest provision. Its most significant modern relevance is scholarly — it features in debates about the constitutional basis for privacy rights, the original understanding of the home's sanctity, and whether historical Bill of Rights provisions should be read to address modern analogues of the specific evils they targeted. A 2015 Nevada case (Mitchell v. City of Henderson) attempted to invoke the Third Amendment against police officers who commandeered a private home during a standoff — the court dismissed the claim, holding that police officers are not "soldiers" within the meaning of the amendment.