Cruikshank has been cited for more than a century by supporters of restrictive state and local
gun control laws such as the
Sullivan Act. Although significant portions of
Cruikshank have been reversed by later decisions, most notably the 5–4
McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling in 2010, it is still relied upon with some authority in other portions.
Cruikshank and
Presser v. Illinois, which reaffirmed it in 1886, are the only significant Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment until the ambiguous
United States v. Miller in 1939. Both preceded the court's general acceptance of the
incorporation doctrine and have been questioned for that reason. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in
District of Columbia v. Heller suggested that
Cruikshank and the cases flowing from it would no longer be considered good law as a result of the radically changed opinion of the
Fourteenth Amendment when that issue eventually comes before the courts: This issue did come before the Supreme Court in
McDonald v. Chicago (2010), in which the Supreme Court "reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states." Regarding this assertion in
Heller that
Cruikshank said the first amendment did not apply against the states, Professor David Rabban wrote
Cruikshank "never specified whether the First Amendment contains 'fundamental rights' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state action". The
Civil Rights Cases (1883) and Justice
Rehnquist's opinion for the majority in
United States v. Morrison (2000) referred to the
Cruikshank state action doctrine. ==See also==