McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Summary

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark Supreme Court ruling that expanded the 2nd Amendment and its applicability to the states and their political subdivisions.

In a five to four split decision, the Supreme Court declared that the 2nd Amendment right for individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a fundamental constitutional right under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and therefore applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

First Timeline

Background

Twenty-seven words comprise the entirety of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The opaque meaning of these twenty-seven words confounded legal scholars, lawmakers and members of the general public for decades; with the Supreme Court refusing to step in and provide a meaningful interpretation to the 2nd Amendment’s language. That left it up to the states and other local communities to decide for themselves how to define the vague twenty-seven words of the 2nd Amendment.

Between 1976 and 1984, the City of Chicago, District of Columbia and Village of Oak Park enacted some of the United States’ strictest gun control laws.

Reasoning for the adoption of such ordinances centered around elected officials’ desire to enhance the health and safety of their constituents through the reduction of gun violence and gun-related crimes.

The Chicago City Council determined, for example, “that it is necessary and desirable to protect the residents of the City of Chicago from the loss of property and injury or death from firearms.”

Nearly three decades after the District of Columbia adopted the Firearms Control Regulations Act, the statute’s constitutionality was challenged in District of Columbia v. Heller.

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, the Heller case marked the Supreme Court’s “first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment.”

The Supreme Court, in Heller [554 U.S. 570 (2008)], struck down portions of the 1976 Firearms Control Regulations Act on the grounds that the District of Columbia law violated an individual’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear firearms for lawful uses such as self-defense in a person’s home.

The Court, however, declined to say whether the 2nd Amendment applied to the states and local governments like Chicago and Oak Park.

McDonald v. Chicago was filed to resolve the ambiguity left by the Supreme Court in its Heller ruling.

Procedural History

On June 26, 2008, the same day that the Supreme Court handed down its ruling and opinion in the matter of District of Columbia et al. v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, David Lawson, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and Illinois State Rifle Association filed legal action [Case No. 08-cv-03645] in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago, challenging the constitutionality of Chicago, Illinois Municipal Code §8–20–040(a) and §8–20–050(c).

The following day, June 27, 2008, the National Rifle Association of America, Inc., Robert Klein Engler, and Gene A. Reisinger filed legal action [Case No. 08-cv-03696] in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Village of Oak Park, challenging the constitutionality of Oak Park, Illinois Municipal Code §27–2–1 and §27–1–1.

Also on June 27, 2008, the National Rifle Association of America, Inc., Kathryn Tyler, Van F Welton, and Brett Benson filed legal action [Case No.  08-cv-03697] in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the City of Chicago, challenging the constitutionality of Chicago, Illinois Municipal Code §8–20–040(a) and §8–20–050(c).

On December 18, 2008, United States District Court Judge Milton I. Shadur issued a judgment in favor of the City of Chicago and against the Plaintiffs in McDonald et al. v. Chicago.

On December 18, 2008, United States District Court Judge Milton I. Shadur issued a judgment in favor of the Village of Oak Park and against the Plaintiffs in National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Village of Oak Park.

On December 18, 2008, United States District Court Judge Milton I. Shadur issued a judgment in favor of the City of Chicago and against the Plaintiffs in National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Chicago.

That same day, December 18, 2008, Plaintiffs in McDonald et al. v. Chicago, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Village of Oak Park, and National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Chicago filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

 

 

On January 15, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered Plaintiffs’ appeals in McDonald et al. v. Chicago, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Village of Oak Park, and National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Chicago be consolidated.

On May 26, 2009, a three judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge William J. Bauer, and Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner heard arguments from both Plaintiffs and Defendants in the consolidated case McDonald et al. v. Chicago et al.

On June 2, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit filed an opinion affirming the judgments of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On June 8, 2009, Plaintiffs in National Rifle Association of America Inc., et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois and Village of Oak Park file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.

On June 9, 2009, Plaintiffs in McDonald et al. v. Chicago file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.

On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in McDonald et al. v. Chicago.

On March 2, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments from Plaintiffs and Defendants in McDonald et al. v. Chicago et al.

 

On June 10, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States reverses the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and remands  McDonald et al. v. Chicago et al. back for further proceedings.

Issues

Is the 2nd Amendment, which prohibits the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, applicable to the states and their political subdivisions under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?

Decision

 

 

In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the 2nd Amendment right recognized in Heller (McDonald, pg. 5).

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy.

Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part with the majority opinion and concurring with the judgment.

Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.  Justice Stevens wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was reversed and remanded back for further proceedings.

Majority Opinion

In McDonald, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms applied to the states and their political subdivisions through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that the 2nd Amendment should be selectively incorporated, as applicable to the states through the due process clause, because the individual right to possess and use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, particularly self-defense, is fundamental to the American “scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice”.  However, the Court cautioned that the right to keep and bear arms does not mean the right to possess or carry any gun in any manner desired.  Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulations.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Thomas concurred in part with the majority decision in McDonald.

He suggested, however, “a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.” Thomas concluded that the Due Process Clause does not put a restraint on the state legislation that the Court claims.

“I cannot accept a theory of constitutional interpretation that rests on such tenuous footing,” Justice Thomas wrote in his conccurring opinion.

Furthermore, Justice Thomas supported the overturning of the Slaughter-House and Cruikshank decisions. These decisions proposed that “the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

Dissenting Opinion

Separate dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Stevens and Breyer.

(Stevens)

Stevens interpreted the 2nd Amendment as: (1) protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms is only in the context of military service; and (2) does not limit government’s authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. Stevens asserted the majority’s individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive;” and its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.”

(Breyer)

Justice Breyer argued, in his dissent, that even if the 2nd Amendment, in addition to military related purposes, protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it should be the understanding that it is the beginning of the constitutional inquiry, not the end. Breyer admitted there are no reasonable ways to determine the gun control laws as constitutional. Therefore, a more solid approach would be a “balancing test” that focuses on “practicalities” to determine what gun control laws would align with the 2nd Amendment, even if it is interpreted as protecting a “wholly separate interest in individual self-defense.” Breyer concluded that a balancing test that takes into account the overwhelming evidence of gun crime and gun violence in urban areas would deem the gun law to be allowed by the Constitution.

Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter all joined in dissenting opinions.

Full Text of Opinions

Syllabus
Majority Opinion (Alito)
Concurring Opinion (Scalia)
Concurring Opinion (Thomas)
Dissenting Opinion (Breyer)
Dissenting Opinion (Stevens)

Significance/Impact

The McDonald decision made it clear that the 2nd Amendment applied, not only to the federal government, but to the states, counties and municipalities as well.

Not another Supreme Court case outcome had provided the result of whether the Bill of Rights applies to the states in forty years.

The Court emphasized that the individual liberty to keep and bear arms is a right provided for under the 2nd Amendment; and expanded those rights by restricting the ability of the states to forbid firearm ownership.

However, the Court declined to address the Privileges and Immunities question. The Supreme Court based its ruling solely on due process grounds.

The McDonald ruling forced both the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park to revise its gun control laws, specifically regarding handguns at home for self-defense.

The Court’s expansion of the 2nd Amendment to the states was welcomed by gun rights advocates, who took both the Heller and McDonald decisions as signs that pro-2nd Amendment justices made up a majority on the Supreme Court. This feeling from organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) has led to other gun control laws receiving challenges in court. One such case, Peruta v. California, questions whether 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies outside of the home. The Supreme Court is still considering whether to hear the case.

Still, the Court’s holding that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, and can be subject to reasonable regulations, left gun control advocates with hope that some handgun restrictions could withstand constitutional challenges in the future.

Second Timeline

Constitutional Provisions

• 2nd Amendment –
  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
• 14th Amendment –
  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
• 14th Amendment –
• “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
• Article IV Section 2 Right of State Citizens; Rights of Extradition –
  “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Government Law or Action Under Review

• Chicago, Illinois Municipal Code §8–20–040(a) (2009)
• Chicago, Illinois Municipal Code §8–20–050(c)
• Oak Park, Illinois Municipal Code §27–2–1 (2007)
• Oak Park, Illinois Municipal Code §27–1–1 (2009)

Important Precedents

• District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2nd 637
• Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394
• Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 14 S. Ct. 874, 38 L. Ed. 812
• United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588
• Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed 615

Important Subsequent Cases

• • Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4251, 83 U.S.L.W. 4576, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 459 (U.S. 2015)
    • Cited in Concurring Opinion

 

• • • • Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272, 195 L. Ed. 2d 736, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4061, 84 U.S.L.W. 4525, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 352 (U.S. 2016)

 

• • • • Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4251, 83 U.S.L.W. 4576, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 459 (U.S. 2015)

 

• • • • Jackson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 135 S. Ct. 2799, 192 L. Ed. 2d 865, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 3722, 83 U.S.L.W. 3889 (U.S. 2015)

 

• • • • Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250, 83 U.S.L.W. 4592, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 472, 115 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2309, 99 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45341 (U.S. 2015)

 

• • • • NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134, 131 S. Ct. 746, 178 L. Ed. 2d 667, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 911, 79 U.S.L.W. 4043, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 760, 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1057 (2011)

 

• • • • Loadholt v. Massachusetts, 562 U.S. 956, 131 S. Ct. 459, 178 L. Ed. 2d 282, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8076, 79 U.S.L.W. 3225 (2010)

 

• • • • NRA of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 1041, 130 S. Ct. 3543, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1119, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5538, 79 U.S.L.W. 3006 (2010)
    • Cited in Dissenting Opinion

 

• • • • Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 191 L. Ed. 2d 186, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1740, 83 U.S.L.W. 4160, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 127, 45 Envtl. L. Rep. 20050, 165 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P36321, 24 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 529 (U.S. 2015)

 

• • • Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 132 S. Ct. 716, 181 L. Ed. 2d 694, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 579, 80 U.S.L.W. 4073, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 60 (2012)

Non-Academic Web Resources

Duignan, Brian. “McDonald v. City of Chicago.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 07 July 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

“McDonald v. Chicago.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521. Accessed 27 Mar. 2017.

Winkler, Adam. “‘Heller’ Was Right.” ACS. American Constitution Society, 5 May 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Zhang, BaoBao. “McDonald v. Chicago.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 30 June 2010. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Academic Books, Articles and Law Reviews

Aynes, Richard L. “McDonald V. Chicago, Self-Defense, the Right to Bear Arms, and the Future.” Akron Journal of Constitutional Law and Policy. ELSEVIER, 14 July 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Jackson, Jeffrey D. “Be Careful What You Wish For.” Why McDonald v. City of Chicago’s Rejection of the Privileges or Immunities Clause May Not Be Such a Bad Thing for Rights 115.3 (n.d.): 1-6. Penn State Law Review. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Kiehl, Stephen. In Search of a Standard: Gun Regulations After Heller and McDonald, 70 Md. L. Rev. 1131 (2011)

Contributors

Spring 2017: Judy Bentley, Christopher Blair, Victoria Justice and Andre Walker

Tasks for Future Contributors

Other sections that could be added to this article to make it stronger include: Arguments by Petitioner, Arguments by Respondent, and Scholarly Commentary and Debate.

This article could also be made a bit more visually appealing with additional HTML coding, along with other photographs and videos related to the case.