United States v. Cruikshank
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
De Jonge v. Oregon held that the assembly right is protected against state infringement through the Fourteenth Amendment; McDonald v. City of Chicago later held the same for the Second Amendment right. District of Columbia v. Heller had reserved that incorporation question. Cruikshank's separate state-action and indictment holdings are unaffected. The partial abrogations are listed below.
67 citations to United States v. Cruikshank sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on United States v. Cruikshank?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
De Jonge held that the peaceful assembly right applies against States through the Fourteenth Amendment, displacing Cruikshank's contrary state-application rule.
De Jonge v. Oregon · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
As this Court said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552: “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions, — principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
McDonald held that the Second Amendment right binds States through the Fourteenth Amendment, displacing Cruikshank's contrary state-application rule.
McDonald v. City of Chicago · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
At the same time, however, this Court’s decisions in Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller do not preclude us from considering whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right binding on the States. ... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Cruikshank and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace