Engblom v. Carey
Engblom v. Carey | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Full case name | MARIANNE E. ENGBLOM and CHARLES E. PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellants, against HUGH L. CAREY, Governor of the State of New York, RICHARD D. HONGISTO, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, JOSEPH C. SNOW, Superintendent of the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, MAJOR-GENERAL VITO J. CASTELLANO, Chief of Staff to the Governor of New York, New York National Guard, LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JUSTIN M. QUEALLY, an Officer of the 106th Maintenance Battalion of the New York National Guard, Captain "JOHN" DREW, an Officer of the 101st Signal Battalion of the New York National Guard, and VARIOUS OFFICERS AND ENLISTED MEN, Members of the New York National Guard, Defendants-Appellees. |
Decided | 1982 |
Citation | 677 F.2d 957 |
Holding | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Keinferd (Chief), Mansfield, Kaufman |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Mansfield |
Concurrence | Keinferd |
Concur/dissent | Kaufman |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. 3, XIV |
Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, was a 1982 court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is the only significant court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The case
The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by National Guardsmen who were activated. At Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (and other facilities) striking employees were evicted from employee housing which was then used to house some of the National Guard. Two of the evicted officers at Mid-Orange C.F., Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, subsequently filed suit against the state of New York and its governor, Hugh L. Carey.
The decision
Rendered on May 3, 1982, the decision established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond home owners.[1] The majority stated that the officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was protected under the Third amendment.
The case was remanded to district court where it was decided in the defendants' favor, due to the principle that as agents of the state, the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity unless they were knowingly acting illegally. In the absence of previous precedents on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met.
There was a dissenting judge who claimed that the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and that the special circumstances of residency on prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection.
References
- ^ Tom W. Bell, The Third Amendment: Forgotten but Not Gone, 2 William & Mary Bill of Rights J. 117 (1993)