Welcome back to Day Three of our series in which we study the Constitution together. Today, we will cover the Third Amendment.
The Third Amendment has really been a pretty boring one … until lately.
The Third Amendment states: 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.
Amendment Three to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It forbids the housing of any military service member in private homes without the consent of the owner.
Let’s look at the Quartering Acts. In the years following the Revolutionary War, Congress attempted to establish laws preventing the abuses conducted by the British during the war. The Third Amendment was in response to the egregious application of the Quartering Acts, which required colonists to house and feed British soldiers against their will.
Recently, citizens have questioned whether or not the Third Amendment protects their businesses, as well. Do they have to house (hotels) and feed (restaurants) Federal employees? Suddenly, the “boring” amendment is being discussed by both individuals and individual business owners. One argument questions whether lower courts will rule in favor of these businesses, stating they are not under any obligation to house/rent and feed Federal employees, while others wonder if this could be discrimination.
The Third Amendment was meant to prohibit troops from taking rooms, not renting them out. On the one hand, hotels that have opted not to rent to certain Federal employees in order to provide peace to their other paying customers might be challenged. If they are pressured by the Federal government to rent/house employees, they could argue to the courts that the government costs them money from other paying customers.
From Courthouse News, “Though a Third Amendment argument against the federal government forcing a hotel to accommodate federal agents might be fraught, experts said there is something to be gleaned from the spirit of this little-remembered constitutional right—and how its historical interpretation as providing a right to privacy can be applied to the current moment.”
Is it a First Amendment case or a Third Amendment concern? It all depends on how this continues to unfold, with the understanding we have not been here … yet.