Engblom v Carey (Landmark Court Decisions in America)💬🏛️✅

Summary

The 1982 case 'Doe v. L. Paul' is a significant legal decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, addressing the Third Amendment's prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes without consent. The case arose from a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers, during which National Guardsmen occupied employee housing. The court ruled that the Third Amendment applies to state authorities and extends to anyone with a legal right to exclude others from their residence, not just homeowners. Despite the ruling, the case was ultimately decided in favor of the state due to qualified immunity.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The case 'Doe v. Lader' was a significant court decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, focusing on the Third Amendment.
• ⚖️ The Third Amendment was invoked to challenge the quartering of National Guardsmen in employee housing during a correction officers' strike in New York.
• 🛡️ The court established that the National Guardsmen are considered 'soldiers' under the Third Amendment.
• 🏢 The decision affirmed that the Third Amendment applies to both state and federal authorities, indicating it is incorporated against the states.
• 🏡 The ruling expanded the scope of the Third Amendment, protecting not just homeowners but anyone with a legal expectation of privacy and the right to exclude others.
• 📜 The court held that the correctional officers' occupancy was protected under tenancy laws, thus falling under the Third Amendment's protection.
• 📊 The case was remanded to the district court, which decided in favor of the defendants due to qualified immunity as state agents.
• 👨‍⚖️ Judge Kaufman dissented, arguing that the officers' occupancy was under employee housing rules and that prison residency circumstances should override Third Amendment protections.
• 🌪️ The script suggests the Third Amendment could be relevant in the 21st century, such as in cases of natural disasters where the National Guard might need to quarter in private homes.
• ⚔️ Even in a state of war, the Third Amendment would require that National Guardsmen be housed in a manner prescribed by law, emphasizing the importance of consent from homeowners.

Q & A

What is the significance of the 'in bloom V carry 677 F point to D 957 to' case?

The case is significant as it is the only notable court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, which deals with the quartering of soldiers in private homes.

Which court decided the 'in bloom V carry 677 F point to D 957 to' case?

The case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

What was the background of the case?

The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers, during which National Guardsmen were activated to perform some duties and were housed in employee housing, leading to the eviction of striking employees.

Who were the petitioners in the case?

The petitioners were Mary Annie Emblem and Charles E. Palmer, two of the evicted correction officers at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility.

What were the legal claims made by the petitioners?

The petitioners claimed violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Third Amendment.

What was the district court's decision regarding the petitioners' claims?

The district court found for the defendants and dismissed the suit.

What were the three important holdings established by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit?

The court held that: 1) National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; 2) the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities; and 3) the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond homeowners to anyone with a legal expectation of privacy and a right to exclude others.

How did the majority in the Court of Appeals rule on the Third Amendment claim?

The majority held that the correctional officers' occupancy was protected under the legal rules of tenancy and thus was covered by the Third Amendment.

What was the final outcome of the case after it was remanded to the district court?

The case was decided in favor of the defendants at the district court level due to the principle of qualified immunity for state agents, as they did not knowingly act illegally in the absence of previous precedents.

What was Judge Kaufman's dissenting opinion regarding the Third Amendment protection?

Judge Kaufman maintained that the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and that the special circumstances of residency in prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection.

How might the Third Amendment be relevant in the 21st century according to the script?

The Third Amendment could be relevant in situations where, during a major natural disaster, the National Guard is activated and decides to house its staff in private dwellings without the owner's consent, which would be prohibited by the Third Amendment.