Facts of the Case
Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Questions
Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
Conclusions
-
The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. The Court reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Here, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Justice Alito, writing in the plurality, specified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. He rejected Justice Clarence Thomas's separate claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment more appropriately incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Alito stated that the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases -- rejecting the use of the Privileges or Immunities Clause for the purpose of incorporation -- was long since decided and the appropriate avenue for incorporating rights was through the Due Process Clause.
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred. He agreed with the Court's opinion, but wrote separately to disagree with Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred and concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, but disagreed that the Due Process Clause was the appropriate mechanism. Instead, Justice Thomas advocated that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the more appropriate avenue for rights incorporation. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. He argued that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented. He argued that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring David Bernstein
In 1936, Elsie Parrish and her husband sued the hotel where she worked, alleging that...
Banning America's Rifle: An Assault on the Second Amendment?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
The AR-15 rifle has aptly been called “America’s Rifle.” It is the most popular rifle...
Incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause
Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court has incrementally incorporated...
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Joyce Lee Malcolm
When Chicago resident Otis McDonald attempted to purchase a handgun, he was turned down because...
To Bear Arms for Self-Defense: A “Right of the People” or a Privilege of the Few? Part 2
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
To Bear Arms for Self-Defense: A “Right of the People” or a Privilege of the Few? Part 1
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York
For the first time in a decade, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a...
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 4-20-16 featuring Nelson Lund
On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Caetano v. Massachusetts without oral argument. Jamie Caetano...
Mandatory Liability Insurance for Firearm Owners: Design Choices and Second Amendment Limits
Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
Some twenty-five years ago, one of us sketched out a rationale for using mandatory liability...
Firearms Law and the Second Amendment - Faculty Book Podcast
Faculty Division Podcast 08-07-12 featuring Nicholas Johnson, Michael O'Shea and Adam Winkler
This podcast discusses Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights and Policy by authors...
Does the Fourteenth Amendment Protect Unenumerated Rights?
Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011
The current debates over the incorporation of the Second Amendment have reignited interest in the...
McDonald v. Chicago, the Meaning-Application Distinction, and "Of" in the Privileges or Immunities Clause
Engage: Volume 11, Issue 1
In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Second Amendment right of...
Engage Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2010
*Online-Only Issue* ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & REGULATION The Regulation of Prescription Drug and Restricted Medical Device...
The Second Amendment and the Puerto Rico Weapons Act of 2020
Puerto Rico Lawyers Chapter
Hard Rock Cafe (Second Floor)1214 Ashford Ave
San Juan, PR 00917
Dialogue on Second Amendment Rights
Widener Law School, Harrisburg Library Building, Room L204 3800 Vartan WayHarrisburg, 19803