Barron v. Baltimore
32 U.S. 243, 8 L.Ed.672, 1833 U.S. LEXIS 346 (1833)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The amendments to the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were intended as limitations solely on the power of the federal government and are not applicable to the legislation of the states.
Facts:
- John Barron was the co-owner of a profitable wharf located in the harbor of Baltimore, Maryland.
- The City of Baltimore undertook a series of public works projects, including the alteration and paving of city streets.
- As a consequence of these projects, large quantities of sand, earth, and sediment were diverted from their natural course and deposited into the harbor.
- These deposits accumulated in the water near Barron's wharf, making the water too shallow for most commercial vessels to approach.
- The utility of the wharf was effectively destroyed, depriving Barron of its use and profitability.
Procedural Posture:
- John Barron sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in the Baltimore County Court, a Maryland trial court.
- The trial court found in favor of Barron and awarded him damages for the harm to his wharf.
- The City of Baltimore, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Maryland Court of Appeals for the Western Shore, the state's highest court at the time.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals, as the appellate court, reversed the judgment of the trial court.
- Barron, as plaintiff in error, then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the city's action violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation apply to state and local governments?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
No. The provision in the Fifth Amendment is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. The Court's reasoning is based on constitutional structure and original intent. The Constitution was established by the people for their own national government, not for the government of the individual states, which have their own constitutions. The Court draws a distinction between Article I, Section 9, which contains restrictions on federal power, and Article I, Section 10, which explicitly lists prohibitions on state governments ('No State shall...'). If the framers of the amendments had intended them to apply to the states, they would have used similarly explicit language. Historically, the amendments were adopted to assuage fears about the power of the new federal government, not to protect citizens from their own state governments.
Analysis:
This decision established the principle that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, a concept often referred to as non-incorporation. This ruling created a dual system of rights, where citizens had to look to their state constitutions for protection against state actions. While the holding of Barron v. Baltimore itself remains good law, its practical effect has been largely superseded by the doctrine of selective incorporation, through which the Supreme Court has, on a case-by-case basis, applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
