McDonald v. City of Chicago

Background

The case of McDonald v. City of Chicago is a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the application of the Second Amendment to state and local governments. The decision, rendered on June 28, 2010, was pivotal in determining the extent to which the right to keep and bear arms is protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case arose from a challenge to handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, following the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which recognized an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home. The plaintiffs in McDonald sought to extend this ruling to the states, arguing that the Second Amendment should be incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Context

Incorporation Doctrine

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Prior to McDonald, the Supreme Court had incorporated most of the Bill of Rights, but the Second Amendment had not been explicitly applied to the states.

Precedent Cases

Before McDonald, the key precedent was District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. However, Heller applied only to federal enclaves, leaving the question of state application open.

Another significant case was The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), which limited the scope of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, affecting how rights could be incorporated against the states.

Case Details

Parties Involved

The plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago included Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident who wanted to own a handgun for personal protection, and several other residents. They were represented by attorney Alan Gura, who also argued the Heller case. The defendants were the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, which had enacted ordinances effectively banning handgun possession by private citizens.

Legal Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should be incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause or, alternatively, through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. They contended that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right necessary for the preservation of liberty.

The City of Chicago argued that the Second Amendment was intended to limit only federal power and that states and municipalities should retain the authority to regulate firearms to ensure public safety.

Amicus Briefs

Numerous amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of both sides, reflecting the case's national significance. Organizations such as the NRA and the ACLU submitted briefs, highlighting the broad interest in the implications of the Court's decision.

Supreme Court Decision

Majority Opinion

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion, emphasizing that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions.

The Court rejected the argument that the Privileges or Immunities Clause should be the basis for incorporation, adhering to the precedent set by the Slaughter-House Cases.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment but argued that the right should be incorporated through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, advocating for a reevaluation of the Slaughter-House Cases.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Stevens, argued that the Second Amendment should not be incorporated against the states, emphasizing the need for local governments to address gun violence through regulation.

Impact and Implications

Legal and Social Impact

The McDonald decision had significant legal and social implications. It effectively extended the Second Amendment's reach, limiting the ability of states and municipalities to enact restrictive gun control laws. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases challenging state and local gun regulations.

Subsequent Litigation

Following McDonald, several lawsuits were filed challenging various state and local gun laws, leading to a patchwork of rulings across different jurisdictions. The decision has been a focal point in the ongoing debate over gun rights and regulation in the United States.

Scholarly Analysis

Legal scholars have extensively analyzed McDonald, debating its impact on the incorporation doctrine and its implications for future cases involving other rights. The decision is often discussed in the context of judicial interpretation of the Constitution and the balance between individual rights and governmental powers.