Johnson v. United States, US District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2001
Vladimir Melnik/Shutterstock
Topic: Chemical storage.
Argument: “Plaintiffs essentially contend the defendant United States of America, while doing its best in the military defense of its citizens, nevertheless quartered its chemicals on plaintiffs’ properties without permission or reasonable compensation, leaving a toxic footprint on the earth.” In the words of the plaintiffs, they had been “invaded and occupied by toxic chemicals.”
Ruling: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Custer County Auction Association v. Garvey, US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, 2001
Topic: Airplanes.
Argument: “Petitioners insist they have a Third Amendment right ‘to refuse military aircraft training in airspace within the immediate reaches of their property,’ and that military overflights occurring in the immediate reaches of their property during peacetime, and without their consent, ‘are per se unconstitutional.'”
Ruling: “We simply do not believe the Framers intended the Third Amendment to be used to prevent the military from regulated, lawful use of airspace above private property without the property owners’ consent.”
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1984
Topic: Cows.
Argument: “Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano (Ramirez), a United States citizen, claims that the Secretaries of State and Defense are operating a large military facility for training Salvadoran soldiers on his private [cattle] ranch without permission or lawful authority, in violation of the Constitution.”
Ruling: The case was dismissed.
Engblom v. Carey, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1981
Topic: Prison housing.
Argument: “[P]laintiffs-appellants contend that their due process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent.”
Ruling: “[Plaintiffs] must have known that substitute personnel would be required during a strike. Since they are employees of a prison, they may properly be charged with knowledge of the risks and limitations on their ‘rights’ as occupants of prison housing.”
Bad news…
Vladimir Melnik/Shutterstock
Topic: Chemical storage.
Argument: “Plaintiffs essentially contend the defendant United States of America, while doing its best in the military defense of its citizens, nevertheless quartered its chemicals on plaintiffs’ properties without permission or reasonable compensation, leaving a toxic footprint on the earth.” In the words of the plaintiffs, they had been “invaded and occupied by toxic chemicals.”
Ruling: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Topic: Airplanes.
Argument: “Petitioners insist they have a Third Amendment right ‘to refuse military aircraft training in airspace within the immediate reaches of their property,’ and that military overflights occurring in the immediate reaches of their property during peacetime, and without their consent, ‘are per se unconstitutional.'”
Ruling: “We simply do not believe the Framers intended the Third Amendment to be used to prevent the military from regulated, lawful use of airspace above private property without the property owners’ consent.”
Topic: Cows.
Argument: “Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano (Ramirez), a United States citizen, claims that the Secretaries of State and Defense are operating a large military facility for training Salvadoran soldiers on his private [cattle] ranch without permission or lawful authority, in violation of the Constitution.”
Ruling: The case was dismissed.
Topic: Prison housing.
Argument: “[P]laintiffs-appellants contend that their due process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent.”
Ruling: “[Plaintiffs] must have known that substitute personnel would be required during a strike. Since they are employees of a prison, they may properly be charged with knowledge of the risks and limitations on their ‘rights’ as occupants of prison housing.”