Barron v. Baltimore (Bill of Rights MD, 1833)
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
The Facts
John Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor. The City of Baltimore diverted streams during street construction, causing silt and sand to accumulate near his wharf, rendering it unusable. Barron sued Baltimore for compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, claiming the city had effectively taken his property without just compensation. The Maryland courts ruled against him.
The Issue
Does the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against uncompensated takings of private property apply to state and local governments, or only to the federal government?
The Rules
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, not to state and local governments.
The Application
Barron's claim failed because he sought to invoke the Fifth Amendment against a state and local entity the City of Baltimore rather than the federal government. Although the diversion of streams and resulting accumulation of silt arguably deprived him of the use and value of his wharf, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause simply did not apply to state and local governmental action. The Court held that Barron's only recourse, if any, would have been through state law and state remedies, not federal constitutional protections. This meant that even significant injuries to property caused by municipal governments fell outside the scope of Fifth Amendment protection.
The Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government and does not constrain state and local governments. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Bill of Rights was adopted to protect citizens from federal overreach, not state action. This established the principle that most constitutional protections did not apply to the states, a rule not substantially changed until the incorporation doctrine developed in the 20th century.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not apply to state and local governments, only the federal government.
Facts
John Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor. The City of Baltimore diverted streams during street construction, causing silt and sand to accumulate near his wharf, rendering it unusable. Barron sued Baltimore for compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, claiming the city had effectively taken his property without just compensation. The Maryland courts ruled against him.
Issue
Whether the Bill of Rights limits the powers of state governments as well as the federal government, or whether the guarantees of the first eight amendments restrict only the actions of the national government.
Rule
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), held that the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause applied only to the federal government and not to state and local governments. Chief Justice Marshall concluded that the Bill of Rights was intended solely to guard against federal encroachment. Barron remained controlling until the Fourteenth Amendment's passage in 1868 and the gradual selective incorporation of Bill of Rights guarantees against the states beginning with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
Analysis
Barron's claim failed because he sought to invoke the Fifth Amendment against a state and local entity, the City of Baltimore, rather than the federal government. Although the diversion of streams and resulting accumulation of silt arguably deprived him of the use and value of his wharf, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause simply did not apply to state and local governmental action. The Court held that Barron's only recourse, if any, would have been through state law and state remedies, not federal constitutional protections. This meant that even significant injuries to property caused by municipal governments fell outside the scope of Fifth Amendment protection.
Conclusion
**The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government and does not constrain state and local governments.** Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Bill of Rights was adopted to protect citizens from federal overreach, not state action. This established the principle that most constitutional protections did not apply to the states. A rule not substantially changed until the incorporation doctrine developed in the 20th century.
Notes
32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support