Everyone
check
your
2026
Bingo
cards
because
we’re
not
even
a
week
in,
and
we’ve
already
got
a
Third
Amendment
controversy
brewing
in
Minnesota!
A
Hilton
Hotels
franchisee
allegedly
refused
to
house
ICE
forces
sent
to
the
state
as
part
of
the
administration’s
most
recent
anti-immigration
surge
and
rather
than
accept
the
private
entity’s
right
to
refuse
service
to
anyone…
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
put
them
on
blast.
We’ve
gone
two
centuries
without
a
Third
Amendment
challenge
—
the
provision
barring
the
government
from
forcing
people
to
house
troops
in
peacetime
—
because
we’ve
lived
in
a
stable
democracy
governed
by
officials
and
a
Supreme
Court
more
or
less
committed
to
maintaining
the
rule
of
law.
But
since
that’s
all
gone
out
the
window,
we
could
finally
see
the
Third
Amendment’s
historic
streak
as
the
only
member
of
the
Bill
of
Rights
team
to
duck
the
Supreme
Court
all
these
years.
The
second
Trump
administration
first
raised
the
prospect
of
a
Third
Amendment
fight
last
year,
when
the
White
House
sent
troops
into
American
cities
dead
set
against
a
domestic
invasion.
While
the
Court
put
those
National
Guard
deployments
on
hold,
the
administration
is
still
sending
its
forces
into
cities
to
harass
immigrants
—
or,
more
accurately,
to
harass
anyone
that
ICE
thinks
might
look
enough
like
an
immigrant
to
satisfy
the
Kavanaugh
Stop
standard.
ICE
officers
dispatched
to
Minnesota
need
a
place
to
stay
and
tried
to
book
rooms
at
a
Hampton
Inn,
part
of
the
Hilton
Hotels
chain,
only
to
have
those
reservations
canceled
by
the
hotel.
Given
that
other
hotels
housing
Trump’s
surges
around
the
country
have
faced
protests,
the
hotel
likely
made
the
prudent
business
decision
to
honor
its
existing
guests
by
not
forcing
them
to
wade
through
a
picket
line
every
morning.
Rather
than
accept
this
exercise
of
free
market
capitalism,
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
opted
to
go
full
Government
Karen
and
demanded
to
speak
to
a
manager.
ONE
STAR.
WOULD
NOT
DEMAND
QUARTER
HERE
AGAIN.
By
“This
is
UNACCEPTABLE,”
they
mean
“this
is,
of
course,
well
within
your
rights
under
the
Constitution
that
we
have
taken
an
oath
to
preserve,
protect,
and
defend.”
Hilton
Hotels,
for
its
part,
showed
all
the
backbone
of
an
elite
law
firm
and
caved
immediately.
We
have
been
in
direct
contact
with
the
hotel,
and
they
have
apologized
for
the
actions
of
their
team,
which
was
not
in
keeping
with
their
policies.
They
have
taken
immediate
action
to
resolve
this
matter.
Hilton’s
position
is
clear:
Our
properties
are
open
to
everyone
and
we
do
not
tolerate
any
form
of
discrimination.
ICE
is
not
a
protected
class,
so
Hilton
is
conceding
that
it
does
not
believe
in
refusing
service
to
anyone,
subject
to
anti-discrimination
laws.
Remember
this
interpretation
of
“discrimination”
the
next
time
they
try
to
throw
you
out
for
throwing
a
kegger
in
your
room.
After
the
Hampton
Inn
supposedly
resolved
the
matter,
a
conservative
hidden
camera
operation
showed
up
at
the
hotel
claiming
to
be
booking
rooms
for
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security,
only
to
be
told
that
the
hotel
management
still
has
a
policy
against
renting
to
DHS
at
this
time.
At
least
in
the
edit
posted
online,
the
person
attempting
to
make
the
booking
said
he
was
using
his
“personal”
email
and
that
“they’d”
need
rooms,
presumably
to
keep
themselves
just
outside
the
range
of
impersonating
a
federal
officer.
In
any
event,
Hilton
corporate
accepted
the
video’s
claims
and
issued
another
follow
up.
The
Department
of
Homeland
Security
is
not
commandeering
hotel
rooms
(yet!),
but
the
Third
Amendment,
patiently
sitting
on
the
constitutional
bench
since
1791
like
the
Constitution’s
third
string
QB,
finally
gets
called
up.
Discussing
the
case,
Professor
Kreis
quipped:
He’s
only
half-kidding
in
that
he
doesn’t
think
it
would
stand
up
in
court,
but
that
it
really
is
worthy
fodder
for
a
law
review
piece.
The
Third
Amendment
was
meant
to
prohibit
troops
from
taking
rooms,
not
renting
them
out.
Assuming
the
government
is
still
willing
to
pay,
there
shouldn’t
be
a
case.
But
here
we
have
an
independently
owned
and
operated
business
refusing
to
rent
rooms,
at
any
rate,
to
a
customer.
If
the
government
just
dropped
money
on
the
desk
and
kicked
in
room
doors,
it’s
hard
to
say
that
wouldn’t
violate
the
spirit
of
the
thing.
Hilton,
as
the
franchise
licensing
entity,
can
tell
the
hotel’s
management
to
rent
to
ICE
or
lose
its
branding.
But
in
this
instance,
Hilton
is
doing
this
because
the
federal
government
is
using
its
pressure
and
implied
threats
to
compel
Hilton
to
lean
on
the
hotel.
Jawboning
became
a
hot
topic
of
conversation
when
right-wing
anti-vaxxers
and
conspiracy
theorists
accused
the
Biden
administration
of
improperly
coercing
social
media
platforms
to
censor
public
health
misinformation.
At
that
time,
the
government’s
take
was
that
they
merely
passed
along
information
and
left
the
ultimate
decision
up
to
the
private
companies.
Technically,
DHS
is
doing
the
same
here…
though
if
you’re
comparing
“please
consider
that
these
Lysol
injection
stories
will
cost
lives”
to
“we’re
taking
the
position
that
if
you
don’t
comply
you’re
aiding
and
abetting
murderers
and
rapists”
you’re
not
really
evaluating
in
good
faith.
But
it’s
the
fuzziness
of
this
“Third
Amendment
jawboning”
argument
that
makes
it
a
potential
candidate
for
a
real
court
case,
depending
on
how
this
all
shakes
out.
If
the
local
management
sticks
to
its
guns
and
then
loses
its
franchise
rights,
they
have
as
good
a
claim
as
any
that
the
government
cost
them
real
money
when
it
leaned
on
Hilton.
Is
it
really
a
First
Amendment
case?
A
tortious
interference
with
contract
case?
Either
would
probably
work
out
better
for
the
hotel
if
it
got
to
that
point.
But
if
this
really
did
end
up
in
court…
we’re
begging
you
to
at
least
throw
the
Third
Amendment
claim
in
there
because
it’s
certainly
colorable.
Do
it
for
the
sake
of
our
Bingo
cards.