---
title: "McDonald v. City of Chicago | Constitutional Law I"
description: "McDonald v. City of Chicago is the 2010 case that applied the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, limiting local gun bans."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago"
type: "key-term"
subject: "Constitutional Law I"
unit: "Unit 17"
---

# McDonald v. City of Chicago | Constitutional Law I

## Definition

McDonald v. City of Chicago is the 2010 Supreme Court case that incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Constitutional Law I, it shows how a right recognized against the federal government can become enforceable against the states.

## What It Is

McDonald v. City of Chicago is the Supreme Court case that made the Second Amendment binding on state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. In this course, it is a major incorporation case because it asks whether a constitutional right recognized in one setting can also limit state power.

The case grew out of Chicago’s handgun ban, which had severely restricted private handgun possession. After District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms against the federal government, the next question was whether that same right also constrains the states. McDonald answered yes, in a 5-4 decision.

The Court used incorporation doctrine to reach that result. Instead of relying on the long-neglected Privileges or Immunities Clause, the majority used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That move matters in Constitutional Law I because it shows how the Court has historically made most Bill of Rights protections apply to the states, even when the constitutional text does not say so directly.

Justice Alito’s majority opinion treated self-defense in the home as a fundamental right. That framing connected the Second Amendment to the Court’s broader fundamental-rights analysis, where the justices ask whether a liberty is deeply rooted in American history and tradition and whether it is essential to ordered liberty. The result was that Chicago could not enforce a handgun ban that violated the incorporated right.

A common misconception is that McDonald created the Second Amendment right. It did not. Heller recognized the individual right against the federal government, and McDonald extended that protection to state and local governments. So if you are reading a case about gun regulation after 2010, McDonald is the bridge between federal constitutional protection and local gun control laws.

## Why It Matters

McDonald v. City of Chicago matters because it is one of the clearest examples of incorporation doctrine in action. If you are tracing how the Bill of Rights reaches state governments, this case sits right in the middle of that story.

It also shows how Constitutional Law I uses the Fourteenth Amendment to control state action. The case is not just about guns. It is about the method the Court uses to decide whether a federal constitutional guarantee limits a city or state, and whether the Court treats a right as fundamental enough for incorporation.

The case also helps you compare doctrinal pathways. McDonald shows the difference between the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Court did not revive here, and the Due Process Clause, which it did use. That makes it a useful case for essays on constitutional interpretation, because you can discuss not only the outcome but also the Court’s choice of reasoning.

For gun regulation, McDonald is the starting point for analyzing whether a state or local law burdens an incorporated right. For broader constitutional analysis, it is a clean example of how one Supreme Court decision can reshape the range of laws cities are allowed to enforce.

## Connections

### Second Amendment

McDonald is about the Second Amendment, but not as a stand-alone federal right. The case shows how the amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms becomes enforceable against state and local governments. That makes the amendment’s scope much broader than Heller alone.

### [Incorporation Doctrine](/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/incorporation-doctrine)

This case is a core incorporation case because it extends a Bill of Rights protection to the states. It is useful whenever you need to explain how the Fourteenth Amendment makes federal constitutional rights apply beyond the federal government.

### [District of Columbia v. Heller](/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/district-of-columbia-v-heller)

Heller came first and recognized the individual right against federal gun restrictions. McDonald builds on that holding by asking whether states and cities are also bound. Together, the cases form the federal to state transition for Second Amendment doctrine.

### [Fundamental Rights](/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/fundamental-rights)

The Court treated self-defense in the home as a fundamental liberty in McDonald. That matters because fundamental-rights reasoning is what supports incorporation through due process in many constitutional cases, especially when the Court looks for deep historical roots.

## On the AP Exam

A case ID question may give you Chicago’s handgun ban and ask whether the ordinance is constitutional. Your move is to spot McDonald, explain that the Second Amendment was incorporated against the states, and connect that result to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In a short essay, you might compare McDonald with Heller, then explain that Heller recognized the right and McDonald extended it beyond federal law. If the prompt mentions the Privileges or Immunities Clause, you can also note that the Court did not revive it here, even though the case sits near that debate. For a discussion post or issue-spotting answer, focus on state action, incorporation, and whether the law burdens a fundamental right.

## McDonald v. City of Chicago vs District of Columbia v. Heller

These cases are easy to mix up because both involve the Second Amendment. Heller is the 2008 case that recognized the individual right against the federal government, while McDonald is the 2010 case that applied that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. If a question involves Chicago or another state or city, McDonald is usually the better match.

## Key Takeaways

- McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments.
- The Court used the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, not the Privileges or Immunities Clause, to reach that result.
- The case followed District of Columbia v. Heller and extended its individual-right holding beyond the federal government.
- It is a major incorporation case because it shows how federal constitutional rights become limits on state action.
- In class, you usually use McDonald when a state or city gun law is being challenged as violating the Second Amendment.

## FAQs

### What is McDonald v. City of Chicago in Constitutional Law I?

It is the 2010 Supreme Court case that made the Second Amendment apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The case matters because it limited state and local gun regulations, including Chicago’s handgun ban. In class, it usually comes up as a major incorporation case.

### How is McDonald v. City of Chicago different from District of Columbia v. Heller?

Heller recognized an individual Second Amendment right against the federal government. McDonald extended that same right to state and local governments. So Heller is about the existence of the right, while McDonald is about who is bound by it.

### Why is the Fourteenth Amendment important in McDonald?

The Fourteenth Amendment is the vehicle that made the Second Amendment apply to the states. The Court used the Due Process Clause to incorporate the right, which is why state and city gun laws became subject to constitutional challenge after the case.

### Does McDonald v. City of Chicago mean all gun laws are unconstitutional?

No. McDonald did not erase all gun regulation. It says the Second Amendment binds the states, so courts still have to evaluate specific laws and decide whether they violate that protected right. Some regulations may still survive constitutional review.

## Related Study Guides

- [17.2 14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause](/constitutional-law-i/unit-17/14th-amendment-privileges-immunities-clause/study-guide/HRhnkdlxe923IIpV)

## About This Document

Canonical Fiveable pages are available as Markdown at the same path plus `.md`.

- [llms.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms.txt): index of Fiveable's sections and URL patterns
- [llms-full.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms-full.txt): complete subject and unit listing
- [MCP server](https://fiveable.me/mcp): call Fiveable as tools instead of fetching pages (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp`)
- [MCP server for AP teachers](https://fiveable.me/mcp/teachers): a teacher's classes, assignments and AP-rubric grading (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp/teacher`)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago#resource","name":"McDonald v. City of Chicago | Constitutional Law I","url":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-07-03T02:21:05.646Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"Constitutional Law I Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago#term","name":"McDonald v. City of Chicago","description":"McDonald v. City of Chicago is the 2010 Supreme Court case that incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Constitutional Law I, it shows how a right recognized against the federal government can become enforceable against the states.","url":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"Constitutional Law I Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is McDonald v. City of Chicago in Constitutional Law I?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It is the 2010 Supreme Court case that made the Second Amendment apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The case matters because it limited state and local gun regulations, including Chicago’s handgun ban. In class, it usually comes up as a major incorporation case."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is McDonald v. City of Chicago different from District of Columbia v. Heller?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Heller recognized an individual Second Amendment right against the federal government. McDonald extended that same right to state and local governments. So Heller is about the existence of the right, while McDonald is about who is bound by it."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why is the Fourteenth Amendment important in McDonald?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The Fourteenth Amendment is the vehicle that made the Second Amendment apply to the states. The Court used the Due Process Clause to incorporate the right, which is why state and city gun laws became subject to constitutional challenge after the case."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Does McDonald v. City of Chicago mean all gun laws are unconstitutional?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. McDonald did not erase all gun regulation. It says the Second Amendment binds the states, so courts still have to evaluate specific laws and decide whether they violate that protected right. Some regulations may still survive constitutional review."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Constitutional Law I","item":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 17","item":"https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/unit-17"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"McDonald v. City of Chicago"}]}]}
```