McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Second Amendment Incorporation

Case at a Glance

Quick Summary

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Otis McDonald and struck down Chicago's handgun ban. The decision extended District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) beyond federal enclaves and made the right to armed self-defense enforceable against every state, county, and city in the United States.

Background of McDonald v. Chicago

Chicago passed one of the strictest gun ordinances in the United States in 1982. The law banned the registration of new handguns and required every firearm to be registered with the city. In practice, the rule made it nearly impossible for a private citizen to legally own a handgun for home defense inside city limits. The nearby Village of Oak Park had a similar ban.

For decades, courts assumed the Second Amendment limited only the federal government. That view rested on 19th-century cases like United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886). Then, in 2008, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. But Heller only applied to Washington, D.C., a federal enclave. It left open whether the same right bound the states.

That open question set the stage for McDonald v. Chicago.

Who Was Otis McDonald?

Otis McDonald was a 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer and Army veteran who lived on Chicago's South Side. His neighborhood suffered from repeated break-ins, drug activity, and gang violence. McDonald owned shotguns for hunting, but he wanted a handgun to defend himself and his wife inside their home. Chicago's ordinance made that illegal.

McDonald joined three other Chicago residents, two firearms dealers, and two gun-rights organizations, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, as plaintiffs. Attorney Alan Gura, who had also argued Heller, led the case.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed suit the day after Heller was decided in 2008. The Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in 2009. The Seventh Circuit ruled it was bound by older Supreme Court precedent that treated the Second Amendment as a limit on federal power only.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 30, 2009. Oral arguments were held on March 2, 2010. The Court issued its decision on June 28, 2010.

Facts of the Case

Chicago required every firearm to be registered. The city refused to register handguns after 1982. That practical prohibition meant residents like Otis McDonald could not lawfully keep a handgun in their homes. Oak Park went further and banned handguns outright.

McDonald had asked the city to allow him to register a handgun for home defense. The city refused. He then sued, claiming the ordinance violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to Illinois and its cities through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Issue

The legal question in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In simpler terms, the Court had to decide if state and local governments must respect the same individual right to firearms that Heller identified against the federal government.

Constitutional Clauses at Issue

• Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause: no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case. Chicago's handgun ban could no longer stand.

Vote

The vote was 5-4. Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas formed the majority. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented.

Majority Opinion by Justice Alito

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the plurality opinion for four justices. He explained that the Court uses selective incorporation to decide which rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the states. A right is incorporated when it is fundamental to the American scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.

Alito walked through American history from the founding through Reconstruction. He showed self-defense was viewed as a basic right at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791. He also showed that after the Civil War, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 saw the right to arms as essential to protect newly freed Black Americans from violence.

Alito concluded the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fundamental. Under the Due Process Clause, it therefore applies to every state and local government. He rejected Chicago's argument that firearms rights should be treated differently because they involve deadly weapons. He noted the Court had already incorporated other rights that produce social costs, such as the exclusionary rule and Miranda warnings.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority in full. He wrote separately to respond to Justice Stevens's dissent. Scalia defended originalism as a limit on judicial discretion and criticized what he saw as the dissent's open-ended balancing approach.

Justice Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas provided the fifth vote but on different reasoning. He concurred in the judgment only. Thomas would have incorporated the Second Amendment through the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause. He argued the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) wrongly gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause and should be reconsidered. His opinion is one of the most detailed modern defenses of restoring that clause.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Stevens

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote his final dissent before retiring. He argued the Due Process Clause protects liberties central to personal autonomy, not a general right to own firearms. Stevens said states should retain broad authority to regulate weapons based on local conditions like urban density and crime rates.

Justice Breyer

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, wrote a separate dissent. Breyer argued Heller itself was wrongly decided. He said the right to armed self-defense is not deeply rooted enough to bind the states and that judges lack the tools to weigh the empirical trade-offs of gun regulation. He would have left firearm policy largely to elected officials.

Court's Reasoning Step by Step

• Step 1: The Court reaffirmed Heller's holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
• Step 2: It explained selective incorporation: most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states one right at a time through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Step 3: It asked whether the right to armed self-defense is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in history and tradition.
• Step 4: It found strong historical evidence from 1791, from Reconstruction, and from state constitutions that the right is fundamental.
• Step 5: It rejected Chicago's argument for a special exception, noting many incorporated rights carry social costs.
• Step 6: It incorporated the right through the Due Process Clause, following the modern doctrinal path.
• Step 7: It reversed the Seventh Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Rule of Law

The rule from McDonald v. Chicago is that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. State and city gun laws must respect the individual right recognized in Heller.

Constitutional Principles Established

• The Second Amendment protects an individual, not just a militia-based, right.
• Selective incorporation applies to the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause.
• Self-defense is a central component of the right to keep and bear arms.
• State and local governments cannot ban an entire class of arms in common use for lawful purposes.
• The Privileges or Immunities Clause remains a live constitutional debate, kept alive by Justice Thomas's concurrence.

Timeline

Why McDonald v. Chicago Matters

Before this case, gun-rights advocates could only challenge federal laws under the Second Amendment. Most gun regulations, however, are passed by states and cities. McDonald changed that. After 2010, every gun law in the country, from New York to California to Texas, must comply with the Second Amendment.

The decision also confirmed that the individual right to armed self-defense is a nationwide constitutional floor. States can add protections. They cannot fall below the federal minimum.

Long-Term Impact

McDonald opened the door to a wave of Second Amendment litigation across the country. Courts spent the next decade sorting out which regulations survive. Bans on handguns, restrictive registration schemes, and blanket prohibitions on carrying firearms outside the home came under new pressure.

In 2022, the Supreme Court built on McDonald and Heller in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Bruen struck down New York's may-issue concealed-carry regime and established a history-and-tradition test for evaluating firearm laws. McDonald was the bridge that made Bruen possible against a state law.

Modern Relevance

Today, McDonald is cited in almost every major gun-rights case. It anchors challenges to state assault-weapon bans, magazine-capacity limits, waiting periods, licensing rules, and public-carry restrictions. Lower courts apply the Heller-McDonald-Bruen framework to decide whether modern regulations fit the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was McDonald v. Chicago about?

McDonald v. Chicago was about whether the Second Amendment applied to state and city gun laws. Otis McDonald wanted to keep a handgun in his Chicago home for self-defense. A city ordinance blocked him. He sued, arguing the ban violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court agreed. The 2010 ruling made the individual right to keep and bear arms enforceable against every state and local government in the United States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Who won McDonald v. Chicago?

Otis McDonald won. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in his favor on June 28, 2010. The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and struck down Chicago's handgun ban. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the plurality opinion. Chicago had to rewrite its firearm ordinance within weeks of the decision. The ruling also delivered a broader victory for gun-rights groups by binding every state to the Second Amendment standard from Heller.

What amendment was involved in McDonald v. Chicago?

Two amendments were central. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment was the tool the Court used to apply that right to state and local governments. Specifically, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment carried the Second Amendment into state law. Justice Thomas would have used the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead, but the majority chose the more traditional Due Process route.

What was the vote in McDonald v. Chicago?

The vote was 5 to 4. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas made up the majority. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Justice Alito wrote the plurality opinion for four justices. Justice Thomas provided the fifth vote but agreed only with the outcome, using different reasoning based on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

What is selective incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago?

Selective incorporation is the doctrine the Supreme Court uses to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to state governments. Not every right is applied automatically. The Court incorporates a right when it finds the right is fundamental to ordered liberty and deeply rooted in American history. In McDonald, the Court used selective incorporation to apply the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This is the same method used to incorporate free speech, religion, and criminal-procedure rights.

Why is McDonald v. Chicago important?

The case is important because it made the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments. Before 2010, most gun laws in the country, passed by cities and states, were largely untouchable under the Second Amendment. After McDonald, every jurisdiction has to respect the individual right to armed self-defense recognized in Heller. The ruling reshaped gun litigation, spurred legislative changes, and set the stage for later decisions like New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.

How did McDonald extend District of Columbia v. Heller?

Heller ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, but only against the federal government. Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave, so Heller did not directly bind states or cities. McDonald extended Heller by incorporating the same right against state and local governments. Together, the two cases created a national floor for gun rights.

What was Justice Thomas's concurrence about?

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed the Second Amendment applies to the states but for a different reason. He said the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause, is the proper vehicle for incorporating rights. Thomas argued the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases wrongly stripped that clause of meaning. His concurrence is one of the most detailed modern arguments for restoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

What was the dissent in McDonald v. Chicago?

Two dissents were filed. Justice John Paul Stevens argued the Due Process Clause does not protect a general right to own guns and that states should be free to regulate firearms based on local needs. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, argued Heller was wrongly decided and that judges are ill-equipped to weigh the public-safety trade-offs of gun regulation.

What happened to Chicago's gun laws after McDonald?

Chicago repealed its handgun ban within weeks of the ruling. The city replaced it with a new ordinance that required training, registration, and permits, and still restricted where firearms could be carried and stored. Later lawsuits challenged parts of the new rules, and courts struck down several provisions, including a ban on gun ranges within city limits and a ban on public carry across Illinois.

When was McDonald v. Chicago decided?

The Supreme Court decided McDonald v. Chicago on June 28, 2010. Oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. The case was argued and decided during the final months of Justice John Paul Stevens's tenure. His dissent in McDonald was his last major opinion before retirement. The decision came almost exactly two years after District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided on June 26, 2008.

Key Takeaways

• McDonald v. Chicago was decided on June 28, 2010, by a 5-4 vote.
• The Court incorporated the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• The ruling struck down Chicago's handgun ban.
• Justice Alito wrote the plurality; Justice Thomas concurred based on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
• Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote strong dissents.
• The case built on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and paved the way for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).