McDonald v. City of Chicago
Citation and Court
561 U.S. 742 (2010). United States Supreme Court. Justice Alito, writing for the Court (5-4); Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment on different grounds.
Facts
After the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents challenged Chicago’s near-total handgun ban. Chicago maintained that Heller only applied to the federal government (the District of Columbia), leaving states and municipalities free to ban handguns. The question was whether the Second Amendment — and specifically the individual right recognized in Heller — applies to state and local governments.
Issue
Does the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore limits state and local gun regulations.
Rule / Doctrine
Selective Incorporation via Due Process: Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to state governments when they are fundamental to the American scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions. The Second Amendment right recognized in Heller — the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense — meets this standard and is therefore incorporated. Justice Thomas separately argued for incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
Significance
McDonald completed the incorporation of the Second Amendment and extended Heller’s individual rights holding nationwide. It also reignited debate about the proper vehicle for incorporation — the Privileges or Immunities Clause (favored by Justice Thomas and originalist scholars) versus the Due Process Clause (the Court’s chosen path). The decision left open the scope of permissible gun regulations beyond total handgun bans, a question that continues to generate significant litigation and was further addressed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).