visual representation of the 3rd amendment

• AI Generator

first amendment

Bill of rights, fourth amendment, freedom of speech, search and seizure, constitution, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, second amendment, 8,083 third amendment stock photos & high-res pictures, browse 8,083  authentic third amendment  stock photos, high-res images, and pictures, or explore additional first amendment  or  bill of rights  stock images to find the right photo at the right size and resolution for your project..

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, educational video, the third amendment.

September 06, 2019

The Third Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens. Based on a despised practice of the British government before the American Revolution, this ban on quartering seemed necessary at the time of the Framing, but does it have any relevance to our lives today? In this video, Khan Academy host Kim Kutz Elliott discusses the Third Amendment's past, present and future with constitutional scholars Glenn Reynolds and Jay Wexler.

The National Constitution Center and Khan Academy partnered to create a series of nonpartisan videos explaining the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and major Supreme Court cases, enlisting the expertise of  Interactive Constitution  scholars.

Explore Further

Constitution day: student town hall with linda monk, happy birthday, bill of rights.

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791). Here’s…

Slavery in America Featuring Gloria J. Browne-Marshall

Bill of rights day 2017, more from the national constitution center.

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Third Amendment :

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The practice of quartering soldiers dates back to at least the Roman Republic, when territorial governors used it as a tool of oppression and source of income. 1 Footnote R. Morris Coates & Gary M. Pecquet , The Calculus of Conquests: The Decline and Fall of the Returns to Roman Expansion , 17 Indep. Rev. 517 , 528 (2013) . In seventeenth-century Britain, the Petition of Right of 1628 levied multiple complaints against King Charles I, including maintaining a standing army and the involuntary quartering of soldiers; 2 Footnote Petition of Right 1628, 3 Car. 1, c. 1, § VI (Eng.) ( “[O]f late great Companies of Souldiers and Marriners have been dispersed into divers Counties of the Realme, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourne against the Lawes and Customes of this Realme and to the great grievance and vexacion of the people.” ). it called on King Charles to end those practices. 3 Footnote Id. § VIII (demanding that the King “remove the said Souldiers and Mariners and that your people may not be soe burthened in tyme to come” ). When quartering continued, the English Parliament in 1679 passed the Anti-Quartering Act, which prohibited the involuntarily quartering and billeting of soldiers. 4 Footnote 31 Car. 2, c. 1 (1679) (Eng.) ( “Noe officer military or civill nor any other person whatever shall from henceforth presume to place quarter or billet any souldier or souldiers.” ). A decade later, the Declaration of Rights (later codified as the Bill of Rights of 1689) cited King James II’s continued practices of maintaining a standing army and quartering as two justifications for his ouster in the “Glorious Revolution.” 5 Footnote Bill of Rights 1689, 1 W. & M. 2d sess., c. 2. The Mutiny Act of 1689 further codified protections against quartering. 6 Footnote 1 W. & M., c. 6.

Concerns over the existence of standing armies and their quartering in private homes spread to the American colonies. The Mutiny Act’s prohibitions on quartering did not extend to the colonies, where involuntary quartering continued. 7 Footnote William S. Fields & David T. Hardy , The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History , 35 Am. J. Legal Hist. 393 , 406, 414 (1991) . Although colonial legislatures attempted to regulate quartering to varying degrees, 8 Footnote See id. One such law was the New York Assembly’s 1683 Charter of Libertyes and Privilidges, which provided: “Noe Freeman shall be compelled to receive any Marriners or Souldiers into his house and there suffer them to Sojourne, against their willes provided Alwayes it be not in time of Actuall Warr within this province.” B. Carmon Hardy , A Free People’s Intolerable Grievance: The Quartering of Troops and the Third Amendment , in The Bill of Rights—A Lively Heritage 74 (Jon Kukla ed., 1987). the British Parliament did not extend the Mutiny Act’s protections to the colonies until 1765. 9 Footnote 5 Geo. 3 c. 33 (1765). The Quartering Act forbade quartering in private homes but required the colonies to bear the costs of barracks and supplies for British soldiers or, in the alternative, to house British soldiers in “inns, livery stables, ale-houses, victualling-houses,” and other such establishments. 10 Footnote Id.

The Quartering Act of 1765 contributed to growing tensions between the colonists and British Forces. This friction ultimately led to outright conflict, one notable example being the Boston Massacre in 1770. 11 Footnote See Fields & Hardy , supra note 7, at 415–16 ; Morton J. Horwitz , Is the Third Amendment Obsolete? , 26 Val. Univ. L. Rev. 209 , 210 (1991) . In response to these hostilities, the British Parliament passed the so-called “Intolerable” or “Coercive Acts,” including the Quartering Act of 1774. 12 Footnote 14 Geo. 3 c. 54 (1774). Other Intolerable Acts included the Boston Port Act, 14 Geo. 3 c. 19 (1774) (prohibiting the use of the Port of Boston in commerce); the Administration of Justice Act, 14 Geo. 3 c. 39 (1774) (authorizing British officials to be tried in Great Britain instead of Massachusetts “to prevent a failure of justice” ), and the Massachusetts Government Act, 14 Geo. 3 c. 45 (1774) (placing the Massachusetts colony directly under the British government’s control). The 1774 Act expanded British officers’ ability to refuse unsuitable housing and seize “uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings” for purposes of quartering soldiers. 13 Footnote 14 Geo. 3 c. 54, ¶ 2. The interpretation of the Quartering Act of 1774—including whether it permitted quartering in private homes-is the subject of some debate. Compare Fields & Hardy , supra note 7, at 416 ( “The 1774 Act, one of the so called ‘Intolerable Acts,’ was even more onerous than the 1765 Act in that it authorized the quartering of soldiers in the private homes of the colonists.” ), with David Ammerman , In the Common Cause: American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774 , at 10 (1974) ( “The act did not, as has often been asserted, provide for billeting soldiers in private homes.” ). As opposition to the Intolerable Acts led to revolution, the colonists’ experiences with quartering influenced the Declaration of Independence, which counted among its grievances against King George III the “Quartering [of] large bodies of armed troops among us.” 14 Footnote The Declaration of Independence para. 13 (U.S. 1776).

As the newly independent states adopted organic laws, four states—Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire—included restrictions on quartering. 15 Footnote Each of these states prohibited peacetime quartering in any house without the owner’s consent. Del. Declaration of Rights § 21 (1776); Md. Const. art. XXVIII (1776) ; Mass Const. art. XXVII (1780) ; N.H. Const. art. I, § XXVII (1784) . In wartime, Delaware and Maryland limited quartering to “such manner only as the Legislature shall direct,” Del. Declaration of Rights § 21 (1776); Md. Const. art. XXVIII (1776) , while Massachusetts and New Hampshire permitted wartime quartering when authorized “by the civil magistrate” under the legislature’s direction, Mass Const. art. XXVII (1780) ; N.H. Const. art. I, § XXVII (1784) . These early state protections initially had no national analogue: the Articles of Confederation contained no restrictions on quartering. 16 Footnote See Articles of Confederation of 1781. Likewise, although the Framers of the Constitution considered including such a restriction, 17 Footnote See, e.g. , James Madison , Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America (Gaillard Hunt & James Brown Scott eds., 1920) ( “Mr. Pinkney submitted to the House . . . the following propositions . . . ‘No soldier shall be quartered in any House in time of peace without consent of the owner.’” ). it was not part of the final draft submitted to the states for ratification. Some Framers objected to the omission, arguing that the Constitution’s failure to prohibit quartering, while allowing standing armies, strengthened the central government’s power. 18 Footnote See, e.g. , Letter from the Federal Farmer, no. 16 (1788), reprinted in 5 The Founder’s Constitution 217 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987) ( “[I]s there any provision in the constitution to prevent the quartering of soldiers on the inhabitants? . . . Though it is not to be presumed, that we are in any immediate danger from this quarter, yet it is fit and proper to establish, beyond dispute, those rights which are particularly valuable to individuals . . . .” ).

Reflecting this concern, five states’ ratifying conventions recommended amending the Constitution to include a prohibition on quartering in the Bill of Rights. 19 Footnote Tom W. Bell , Note, The Third Amendment : Forgotten but Not Gone , 2 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 117 , 129 (1993) ; Fields & Hardy , supra note 7, at 81 . The proposed amendments took two forms. Maryland and New Hampshire proposed amendments that would have prohibited involuntary quartering during peacetime but were silent as to quartering during wartime. 20 Footnote Bell , supra note 19, at 129–30 . In contrast, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina proposed amendments with the same peacetime restrictions that also subjected wartime quartering to limits imposed by law. 21 Footnote Bell , supra note 19, at 129–30 . This second version formed the basis for the amendment as introduced in the House of Representatives by James Madison 22 Footnote 1 Annals of Cong. 451 (1789) (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) (statement of Rep. James Madison) ( “No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.” ). and ultimately adopted as the Third Amendment .

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Close TELL CONGRESS: Stop the biggest expansion of government surveillance in decades ADD YOUR NAME

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

What Is the Third Amendment, and Will the Supreme Court Ever Examine It Again?

A University of Michigan professor discusses whether this dead area of the Constitution could be revived in a new form.

• Leonard Niehoff

Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

One thing we learned about the Constitution during Donald Trump’s presidency is that there are dead zones in the hallowed document that aren’t likely to be revived anytime soon. We now know, for example, that the federal courts aren’t ready or willing to enforce the “ Emoluments Clauses ” of the Constitution,  Article I, Section 9 . The Supreme Court without comment  dismissed two emoluments cases in January 2021  despite ample evidence that Trump violated them through revenue from the Trump Hotel and some of his other businesses.

Other dead areas of the Constitution — amendments, articles, provisions, and clauses that draw virtually no litigation — preceded the Trump era and will surely last far beyond it. Into this category goes the Third Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that was designed to protect the colonialists from being forced to house British soldiers in the decades leading up to the Revolutionary War. Since there no longer are any British soldiers hanging around, and since active U.S. military personnel tend to live on military bases, there simply aren’t any litigants asserting the rights and privileges of the Third Amendment.

No litigants means no new case law. And no new case law means little work for law professors, historians, and others who are interested in why the drafters of the Bill of Rights felt the need to place the no-quartering-of-soldiers amendment third in the pecking order, before other amendments that are far more prominent and controversial today. The Sixth Amendment, for example, guarantees fair trial rights, and the Eighth Amendment is supposed to protect us from “cruel and unusual punishment.” These vital protections came  after  the one protecting people from soldiers, even though the Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of the Third Amendment, and it remains the least litigated of all of the constitutional amendments.

As part of the Brennan Center’s continuing series on the Bill of Rights, I reached out to  Leonard Niehoff,  a professor from practice at the University of Michigan. Among other subjects, he keeps apprised of developments, rare as they are, in Third Amendment law.

COHEN:  Are there any pending cases that you are watching in which lawyers or litigants have raised a Third Amendment claim? If so, tell me a little about that case. If not, tell me when the Third Amendment last made an appearance in a federal appeals court decision.

NIEHOFF:  Third Amendment cases remind me of those giant prehistoric fish that scientists once believed to be extinct but that are found in nets every few decades. The forced quartering of soldiers doesn’t come up much, but we can’t quite declare it extinct. I’m not aware of any current cases that raise a major Third Amendment claim, and I can’t say with confidence when a federal case last referred to it. A candidate for that honor might be  Mitchell v. City of Henderson , a 2015 case from the federal district court in Nevada. There, the plaintiffs alleged that police officers brutally forced them to leave their home so they could occupy it to gain a tactical advantage in handling a domestic violence incident happening next door. The plaintiffs claimed that this conduct violated the Third Amendment, among other things. The court concluded that it didn’t because (a) police officers aren’t soldiers and (b) occupying the premises for less than 24 hours didn’t amount to quartering. 

COHEN:  So what does Third Amendment scholarship focus on these days in the absence of pending case law? Is anyone offering any new historical analysis or provocative theories about how the Third Amendment can or should be applied to modern circumstances?

NIEHOFF:  I think the Supreme Court may recently have opened up new possibilities for Third Amendment scholarship and litigation. To the extent courts have bothered with the Third Amendment at all, they have generally limited it to its literal terms. We see this in the Nevada case I just mentioned. But in the  Bruen  case, where the Supreme Court struck down a 100-year-old New York State firearm regulation under the Second Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas stressed the importance of using analogies to understand the meaning of a constitutional provision.

One could argue that this isn’t coherent: it would seem that a strict originalist shouldn’t care about analogous contemporary situations that the Founders didn’t anticipate. But Justice Thomas had to make this concession. Vast swaths of our First Amendment case law work by historical analogy. That’s how “speech” ends up protecting social media posts on the Internet. And (of greatest concern to Justice Thomas in that moment) without the use of analogies, the Second Amendment wouldn’t extend to modern weapons like semi-automatic handguns. This raises the interesting question: What sorts of situations are analogous to the forced quartering of soldiers in the home?

COHEN : Okay, I’ll bite. What sorts of situations are analogous to the forced quartering of soldiers in the home? Is there a Third Amendment component to the decision by governors to send National Guard troops to the border to perform law enforcement operations against asylum seekers and other migrants? If not, where are we most likely to next see an attorney or a judge invoke the Third Amendment?

NIEHOFF:  Yes, that’s the idea. Any time the government occupies private property for military or quasi-military purposes, we might go analogy hunting. Could that include law enforcement purposes? It seems plausible, particularly with the increasing militarization of police forces. How will we know when an analogy is too strained? We won’t. When will we know? When the Supreme Court tells us.

COHEN:  So what animates your thoughts about the Third Amendment these days? Where have you landed after your years of research on it? Is it likely to be used in the next decade to justify a decision that protects a homeowner from a troop of militarized police? Are there advocates out there who are pressing to make it relevant in 2022? 

NIEHOFF:  To be clear, although I’ve written a little about the Third Amendment, I haven’t conducted years of research into it, and, frankly, I don’t know anyone who has. Getting tenure on the strength of the Third Amendment would be a tall order. With that said, it’s a fascinating field to watch, particularly if lawyers begin arguing that cases like  Bruen  invite the use of the analogical imagination, an approach for which literalist courts have shown little sympathy. Observing Third Amendment litigation is a bit like hiking in Tibet looking for a snow leopard; the mere prospect of seeing one rewards the watching. I hope you didn’t miss the stretch of analogical muscle there.

COHEN:  I probably don’t have to tell you that most folks don’t spend much time thinking about the contours of the Third Amendment. Is there any particularly  smart academic work  or other scholarship you can direct them to if people are interested in how that amendment might be applied in our current political and legal context?

NIEHOFF:  Most of the research of which I’m aware focuses on relatively narrow historical questions, like the extent to which the quartering of soldiers was actually allowed. For people who’d just like a little more information about the amendment, the historian Gordon Wood has  a lovely short essay  published online by the Constitution Center that they might enjoy reviewing. I spend most of my time reading about other amendments, especially the First, which is the subject of a  book I’ve just published  with Cambridge University Press. I assume that such a shameless plug will leave you with no further questions.

This inter­­view has been edited for length and clar­ity.

This discus­­sion is one of several in a Bren­nan Center series on the Bill of Rights. The inter­­view with Darrell Miller about the Second Amend­ment is  here , the inter­view with Orin Kerr about the Fourth Amend­­ment is  here , the inter­­view with David Carroll about the Sixth Amend­­ment is  here , the inter­­view with Carol Steiker about the Eighth Amend­­ment is  here ,  and the interview with Jessica Bulman-Pozen about the Tenth Amendment is  here .

House Meeting on White House AI Overreach Highlights Congressional Inaction

Congress must act to mitigate potential harms of this rapidly evolving technology.

Noncitizens Are Not Voting in Federal or State Elections — Here’s Why

States have multiple systems in place to deter noncitizen voting. Those who violate the law face prison time and deportation.

Civil Rights Groups Oppose Citizenship Question and Changes to Apportionment Base 

The year(s) of section 702 reform, part vi: (another) looming deadline, california advances legislation to protect voters and workers against intimidation, new census questions are a critical step toward an improved 2030 count, stop the stall, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

3rd Amendment

The 3rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution concerns housing soldiers during wartime. For example, the 3rd Amendment forbids soldiers from temporarily taking up residence in citizens’ houses during peace time, unless they have consent from the homeowner to do so. While not normally enforced in modern times, the 3rd Amendment was particularly necessary during the American Revolutionary War. It is also the least litigated amendment to the Constitution. To explore this concept, consider the following 3rd Amendment definition.

Definition of 3rd Amendment

• The Amendment to the Constitution that specifies that soldiers are forbidden from staying with citizens in their private homes during peace time without permission.

December 15, 1791       Amendment ratified by Congress

What is the 3rd Amendment

The 3rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution concerns whether soldiers are permitted to stay with private citizens during peace time. While they are permitted to do so during wartime, during peace time it is important that soldiers gain the express permission of the homeowner before attempting to take up residence in his home. This amendment is relatively unused at this point in time, but at one point in U.S. history, the amendment was not only relevant but also necessary.

History of the 3rd Amendment

The history of the 3rd Amendment begins before the American Revolutionary War. During the war, American colonists were often asked to allow British soldiers to stay with them temporarily. This was because the British did not have their own bases across the colonies, and so they needed somewhere to sleep at night when they were done fighting for the day. Even before the war, the British had passed what were called the “Quartering Acts.”

The first of the Quartering Acts said that the American colonies must pay for the British soldiers who were fighting to protect their colonies. It also stated that, if the British soldiers needed a place to stay, they were permitted to stay, without asking, in the barns, stables, and inns that belonged to the colonists. The second Quartering Act took things one step further, removing the restrictions on where British troops could stay. Now, they were permitted to stay wherever they wanted, including inside the colonists’ homes. The unhappy colonists renamed these acts the “ Intolerable Acts .”

This practice of what was essentially home invasion continued into the days of the Revolutionary War. Now soldiers were not only taking over colonists’ homes, but were demanding food as well. After the war, the colonists wanted to ensure that something like this could never happen again, and so began the history of the 3rd Amendment.

The idea of the 3rd Amendment is that, while a soldier may still be allowed to occupy private property for a short period during wartime, during peace time the property owners’ rights are superior to the rights of the military. Under the amendment, property owners can now refuse to “quarter,” or house, soldiers if they so choose. Americans still continued to quarter soldiers, however, until even after the Civil War. Since then, the 3rd Amendment has only applied to a handful of situations, but it remains important even to this day. For example, the 3rd Amendment protects the American citizens’ right to privacy.

The history of the 3rd Amendment is a rather tame one. For example, the 3rd Amendment is one of the least controversial amendments. It is also so rarely contested that the American Bar Association has referred to it as the “runt piglet” of the Constitution.

Modern Relevance of the 3rd Amendment

The modern relevance of the 3rd Amendment, as of 2017, has it as being generally non-existent. Today, the federal government is not likely to ask people to house soldiers in their homes, even during wartime. That being said, the modern relevance of the 3rd Amendment has more to do with protecting the American people from the government being able to intrude upon their homes. It is also the only amendment that concerns the relationship the citizens have with the military, both during peace time and wartime. The rights granted in this amendment emphasize the importance of civilian control over their homes and property.

Some legal scholars believe that the modern relevance of the 3rd Amendment can be molded to fit relevant circumstances. For instance, they believe that the 3rd Amendment may be applicable to the government’s response to terror attacks, natural disasters, or even to issues involving the militarization of the police.

3rd Amendment Example Involving Correction Officers

One of the more recent court cases involving a challenge to the 3rd Amendment was the case of Engblom v. Carey . In this case, Plaintiffs Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer were working as corrections officers at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, in the state of New York. They sued the Governor of New York, along with various prison officials of the state of New York, alleging that their Due Process and 3rd Amendment rights had been violated by the defendants during a statewide strike.

In April and May of 1979, state corrections officers went on strike, and the National Guard was activated to cover their positions in the prisons. Many of the corrections officers lived in employee housing owned by the state. During the strike, National Guard members were housed in these residences without giving prior notice to, or seeking the permission of, the officer residents.

Initially, the United States District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint . The Court’s grounds for doing so was that the plaintiffs did not have enough ownership in their facility residences to entitle them to the protections they claimed had been violated.

The corrections officers appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court on its assertion that the National Guardsmen are considered to be “soldiers” under the 3rd Amendment. They are also state employees under the Governor’s control. However, the Circuit Court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ 3rd Amendment claim, holding that it could not say as a matter of law whether the plaintiffs held enough ownership in their living quarters to qualify for protection under the 3rd Amendment. The appellate court remanded the dismissal of the 3rd Amendment claim to the lower court.

The District Court ultimately granted the defendant ’s motion for dismissal, explaining its decision in this manner:

“Thus, I conclude that as a matter of law plaintiffs’ Third Amendment rights were not ‘clearly established’ at the time of the events in question, and therefore that the defendants are protected by a qualified immunity and entitled to summary judgment. Consequently, it is unnecessary to address the defendants’ argument in the alternative that they are shielded from damage liability due to the absence of any personal involvement.”

Related Legal Terms and Issues

• Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
• Plaintiff – A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity, such as in a civil lawsuit , or criminal proceedings.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

All Amendments to the US Constitution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 17, 2023 | Original: June 14, 2021

Even before the U.S. Constitution was created, its framers understood that it would have to be amended to confront future challenges and adapt and grow alongside the new nation. In creating the amendment process for what would become the permanent U.S. Constitution, the framers made constitutional reform easier—but not too easy.

According to Article V of the Constitution, an amendment must either be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate , or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Either way, a proposed amendment only becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states).

Since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, hundreds of thousands of bills have been introduced attempting to amend it. But only 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified , out of 33 passed by Congress and sent to the states. Under Article V, states also have the option of petitioning Congress to call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of state legislatures agree to do so. This has never occurred, though state legislatures have passed hundreds of resolutions over the years calling for a constitutional convention over issues ranging from a balanced budget to campaign finance reform.

Here is a summary of the 27 amendments to the Constitution:

First Amendment (ratified 1791)

In order to secure support for the Constitution among Anti- Federalists , who feared it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of individual states, James Madison agreed to draft a Bill of Rights during the first session of Congress. Of these first 10 amendments, the First Amendment is arguably the most famous and most important. It states that Congress can pass no law that encroaches on an American freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petition the government. These fundamental rights of thought and expression go to the heart of the revolutionary idea of popular government, as envisioned in the Declaration of Independence .

Second Amendment (ratified 1791)

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “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.” During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states.

Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over the original intention of the Second Amendment. The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units. Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. Gun rights supporters, as well as Supreme Court decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), have argued the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual person to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense.

Third Amendment (ratified 1791)

This amendment prohibits the quartering of militia in private homes in either war or peacetime without consent of the homes’ owners. As a reaction against past laws allowing British soldiers to take shelter in colonists’ homes whenever they wanted, the Third Amendment doesn’t appear to have much constitutional relevance today, as the federal government is unlikely to ask private citizens to house soldiers. The Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of the Third Amendment, but it has referred to its protections in cases surrounding issues of property and privacy rights.

Fourth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” also grew directly out of colonial Americans’ experiences prior to the Revolutionary War . Most notably, British authorities made use of general warrants, which were court orders that allowed government officials to conduct searches basically without limitations. Beginning in the 20th century, with the growth in power of federal, state and local law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment became an increasingly common presence in legal cases, limiting the power of the police to seize and search people, their homes and their property and ensuring that evidence gathered improperly could be excluded from trials.

Fifth Amendment (ratified 1791)

In addition to the famous right to refuse to testify against oneself (or “plead the Fifth”), the Fifth Amendment establishes other key rights for defendants in criminal proceedings, including the need for formal accusation by a grand jury and the protection against double jeopardy, or being tried for the same crime twice. It also requires the federal government to pay just compensation for any private property it takes for public use. Most importantly, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can face criminal punishment without receiving “due process of law,” a protection that the Supreme Court later extended under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment .

Sixth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Sixth Amendment also deals with protecting the rights of people against possible violations by the criminal justice system. It ensures the right to a public trial by an impartial jury without a significant delay and gives defendants the right to hear the charges against them, call and cross-examine witnesses and retain a lawyer to defend them in court. 

According to the modern interpretation of the amendment—shaped by Supreme Court cases such as Powell v. Alabama (1932), which involved the defendants known as the Scottsboro Boys —the state is required to provide effective legal representation for any defendant who cannot afford to employ a lawyer on their own.

Seventh Amendment (ratified 1791)

With the Seventh Amendment, Madison addressed two Anti-Federalist concerns: that the document failed to require jury trials for civil (non-criminal) cases, and that it gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn the factual findings of juries in lower courts. Considered one of the most straightforward amendments in the Bill or Rights, the Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as automobile accidents, property disputes, breach of contract, and discrimination lawsuits. It also prevents federal judges from overturning jury verdicts based on questions of fact, rather than law. Unlike nearly every other right in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not extended the right to civil jury trial to the states, although most states do guarantee this right.

Eighth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Eighth Amendment continues the theme of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by targeting potential abuses on the part of the criminal justice system. In banning the requirement of “excessive bail,” the imposition of “excessive fines,” and the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment,” but leaving the exact interpretation of these terms unclear, it paved the way for future generations to battle over their meaning. In particular, differing opinions over what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” fuel the ongoing debate in the United States over capital punishment.

Ninth Amendment (ratified 1791)

During the debate that produced the Bill of Rights, skeptics argued that by listing such fundamental rights in the Constitution, the framers would be implying that the rights they did not list did not exist. Madison sought to allay these fears with the Ninth Amendment. It ensures that even while certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution, people still retain other non-enumerated rights. 

Legal scholars and courts have long debated the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, particularly whether or not it provides a foundation for such rights as privacy (as in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut ) or a woman’s right to an abortion (1973’s Roe v. Wade ).

10th Amendment (ratified 1791)

As the final amendment in the Bill of Rights , the 10th Amendment originally aimed to reassure Anti-Federalists by further defining the balance of power between the national government and those of the individual states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government’s powers are limited to those expressly given to it by the Constitution, while all other powers are reserved for the states or the people. Over the generations, debate has continued over which powers fall into this latter category, and what limitations should be placed on the expanding powers of the federal government.

11th Amendment (ratified 1795)

The first amendment to be ratified after the Bill of Rights, the 11th Amendment was also the first to be framed in direct response to a Supreme Court verdict. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), the Court had ruled that the plaintiff, a resident of South Carolina, had the right to sue Georgia for repayment of debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. After many states argued that using the federal courts in this way would shift too much power to the national government, Congress passed the 11th Amendment, which removes all cases involving suits between states from federal court jurisdiction.

12th Amendment (ratified 1804)

Passed in the wake of the chaotic presidential election of 1800 , in which Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr received the exact same number of votes in the Electoral College , the 12th Amendment provides the method for selecting president and vice president of the United States. Though Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had mandated that each elector cast two votes without differentiating between their choices for president and vice president, the 12th Amendment requires electors to split the balloting for the two offices.

13th Amendment (ratified 1865)

More than six decades passed between ratification of the 12th and 13th Amendments. With the United States roiled by sectional tensions over slavery, few in the post-founding generations wanted to provoke a constitutional crisis by proposing a potentially divisive amendment. But after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation , which freed only enslaved people behind enemy lines during the Civil War , support grew for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. Ratified after Lincoln’s assassination, the 13th Amendment finally put an end to the institution that had marred the country since 1619 .

14th Amendment (ratified 1868)

Intended to give Congress the authority to protect the rights of Black citizens in the South, where white-dominated state governments enacted discriminatory “ Black codes ” immediately following the end of the Civil War , the 14th Amendment was arguably the most important of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction . Section 1 of the amendment reversed the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford by stating that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. It also extended the civil rights of citizens and their right to due process by protecting civil rights from infringement by the states as well as the federal government. Finally, Section 1 guarantees “equal protection under the laws” to all citizens.

Together with the Bill of Rights, these broad protections form the foundations of civil rights law in the United States, and have been invoked over the years by various groups of citizens ( as well as corporations ) seeking equal treatment under the law.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths clause of the original Constitution, which held that each enslaved person counted for three-fifths of a person. It specified that every resident of a state should be counted as a full person for the purposes of congressional representation. Section 3, aimed at former Confederate leaders, holds that Congress can bar any official who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding public office. Section 4 exempted federal and state governments from paying any debts incurred by the former Confederate states or compensating them for the loss of their human property. Finally, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to create laws to enforce the amendment’s provisions, a sweeping mandate that would strengthen the power of the federal government in relation to the states.

15th Amendment (ratified 1870)

After Congress enfranchised Black male voters in the South by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, it sought to protect this right under the Constitution. As the last of the so-called Civil War amendments, all of which sought to ensure equality for African Americans, the 15th Amendment outlaws discrimination in voting rights on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. With the end of Reconstruction in 1877, however, Southern states effectively disenfranchised Black voters by enacting poll taxes, literacy tests and other discriminatory practices. The promise of the 15th Amendment to protect Black voting rights remained unfulfilled until the civil rights movement and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

16th Amendment (ratified 1913)

Though Americans had paid income taxes in earlier eras (during the Civil War , for example), the Supreme Court ruled in 1894’s Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust that an income tax imposed by Congress was unconstitutional given Article I’s requirement that such “direct” taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. The decision drew widespread outrage, and led to the passage of the first of four constitutional amendments that would be ratified during the Progressive era . The 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to enact a nationwide income tax, vastly expanding the federal government’s source of revenue and spending power and enabling it to become a stronger force in American life than ever before.

17th Amendment (ratified 1913)

The movement in favor of the popular election of senators gained strength in the late 19th century, fueled by a view of the Senate as an out-of-touch, elitist group subject to corruption. By 1912, many state legislatures had lent their vocal support to the change, leading to ratification of the 17th Amendment the following year. The amendment substantially altered the structure of Congress as set out in Article I of the Constitution, removing from state legislatures the power to choose U.S. senators and giving it directly to the voters of each state.

18th Amendment (ratified 1919)

Though the temperance movement had existed since the earliest years of the nation’s history, it gained strength during the Progressive Era , especially in rural American communities. The new income tax freed the government from its dependence on the liquor tax, and senators (now directly elected) were subject to greater pressure from temperance advocates. Congress followed up on ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors,” but not their consumption, with passage of the Volstead Act to enforce it. Prohibition remained in effect for the next 13 years, until its repeal with the 21st Amendment.

19th Amendment (ratified 1920)

Susan B. Anthony and other supporters of women’s suffrage were bitterly disappointed after the Civil War, when Congress excluded gender from the list of categories that could not be used to deny voting rights in the 15th Amendment. With a constitutional amendment stalled in Congress for decades, suffragists focused their efforts on the states, where they were able to make gradual progress . By the time the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, forbidding the United States or any state from denying or abridging the right to vote to any citizen “on account of sex,” 30 states and one territory allowed women to vote in at least some elections. Even after ratification of the 19th Amendment, many women of color were subject to various types of voter suppression until passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 .

20th Amendment (ratified 1933)

Before ratification of the 20th Amendment, 13 months had passed between the election of a new Congress and the time it held its first meeting. The amendment shortened this “lame-duck” period by specifying that regular terms for members of the Senate and House of Representatives begin on January 3 of the year following their election. It also moved up the inauguration of the president by six weeks, moving it to January 20. The 20th Amendment was quickly proposed, passed and ratified during the Great Depression , when many people regretted that Franklin D. Roosevelt had to wait four months to succeed the unpopular Herbert Hoover .

21st Amendment (ratified 1933)

Prohibition became widely unpopular during the Depression, especially in American cities, where some demonstrators marched in parades carrying signs declaring “We Want Beer.” The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition and left the states in charge of regulating the sale and consumption of liquor, is the only amendment that repeals an earlier amendment (the 18th). It’s also the only one to be ratified by state ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures. As the temperance movement still held sway in many states, supporters of the 21st Amendment realized that state legislators could be subject to political pressure, and opted to follow the convention route instead.

22nd Amendment (ratified 1951)

Though term limits were not a part of the Constitution, later generations of Americans believed that George Washington set a valuable precedent when he made the decision to step away from the presidency after two terms in 1796. Several later presidents flirted with the idea of a third term, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to follow through. Guiding the nation through the tumultuous era spanning the Depression and World War II , FDR won an unprecedented four presidential elections , but died several months after his fourth term began in 1945. Two years later, Congress began the process of passing the 22nd Amendment, which limited future presidents to two terms .

23rd Amendment (ratified 1961)

Since the District of Columbia became the seat of the U.S. government in 1800, debate had raged over the inability of its residents to participate in federal elections. The 23rd Amendment addressed this, giving D.C. residents the right to choose electors for presidential and vice-presidential elections in the same way the states do. While the original version of the amendment approved by the Senate would have granted the District representation in the House of Representatives, the House rejected this idea. In 1978, Congress adopted another proposed amendment that provided for D.C. to “be treated as though it were a State,” including congressional representation, but it failed to win ratification .

24th Amendment (ratified 1964)

Starting in the years following Reconstruction , many white-dominated Southern legislatures enacted poll taxes as a method of disenfranchising Black voters . Congress repeatedly debated legislation to eliminate poll taxes starting in 1939, but none passed. Though only five states still had such taxes in place by 1964, supporters of the civil rights movement saw their abolition as an important objective in combating racism and discrimination against Black Americans. The 24th Amendment applied only to federal elections, and after its ratification several southern states tried to maintain poll taxes for separately held state elections. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the Supreme Court deemed such taxes a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

25th Amendment (ratified 1967)

After John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, a movement grew to clarify the vague procedures that had existed around presidential disability and the right of succession. The 25th Amendment states that the vice president will succeed the president in case of the latter’s death or resignation, and lays out the procedure for filling a vacancy in the vice president’s office. It also allows the president to declare a temporary inability to serve—as in the case of undergoing surgery—and resume powers when able. The fourth and most controversial section, which has never been invoked, empowers the vice president to become acting president if the president is determined (by the vice president and the majority of the Cabinet, backed by Congress) to be unable to perform the duties of the office.

26th Amendment (ratified 1971)

The long-running debate over whether young Americans should be asked to risk their lives fighting for their country before they were given the right to vote intensified during the Vietnam War . In 1970, Congress passed a statute lowering the age of voting in all federal, state and local elections to 18. When Oregon challenged that law, the Supreme Court sided with the state, ruling that Congress only had jurisdiction over federal elections. With a groundswell of popular support, the 26th Amendment was passed and ratified in record time, lowering the legal voting age to 18 in all U.S. elections.

27th Amendment (ratified 1992)

By prohibiting any law raising or lowering the salaries of members of Congress from taking effect before the start of a new session of Congress begins, the 27th Amendment aims to reduce corruption in the legislative branch of the federal government. Originally introduced by Madison, it was left in limbo when the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 and largely forgotten by the late 20th century, when Gregory Watson, a college student in Texas, read about it in a class on American government. Watson later rallied enough popular support (and resentment of Congress) to get the requisite three-quarters of U.S. states to ratify the 27 Amendment by 1992, nearly 200 years after Madison first proposed it .

Constitutional Amendment Process. Federal Register, National Archives .

Jack N. Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence . (Harvard University Press, 2009)

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation .

Interactive Constitution. Constitution Center .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us