Barron v. Baltimore

7 Pet. (32 U.S.) 243 (1833), argued 11 Feb. 1833, decided 16 Feb. 1833 by vote of 7 to 0; Marshall for the Court. A wharf owner sued the city of Baltimore for economic loss occasioned by the city's diversion of streams, which lowered the water level around his wharves. He claimed that the city took his property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This presented the question whether the Fifth Amendment restrained the states. After surveying the history of the Bill of Rights, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that the first ten amendments restrained only the federal government, thus requiring Americans to look to state constitutions for protection of their civil and political liberties. The opinion marked a retreat from Marshall's earlier nationalism, one impelled by the changing composition of the Court and the growth of states' rights sentiment. The Court reaffirmed the holding of Barron in Permott v. New Orleans (1845).

With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the application of the Bill of Rights to the states again became an issue. In Hurtado v. California (1884), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was a limit on state power. Not until the twentieth century incorporation cases, beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925) did Barron lose its authoritative status. Today almost all of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated as restraints on the states.

See also Incorporation Doctrine; State Constitutions and Individual Rights; State Sovereignty and States' Rights.

— David J. Bodenhamer

• 7 Pet. 243 (1833)
• Vote: 7–0
• For the Court: Marshall

John Barron owned docks and warehouses at the east side of the harbor of Baltimore, Maryland. Barron's wharf was a popular place for ships to tie up for off-loading cargoes into nearby warehouses. Barron and his partners made big profits by renting their wharf to ship owners.

Barron's prosperity was being ruined, however, by construction crews working for the city government of Baltimore. They were digging up land, building streets, and diverting streams. Rainfall caused dirtladen runoff to flow into the Patapsco River, which deposited the debris under Barron's docks. As a result, the water level at Barron's wharf was lowered to the point of interfering with the safe entry of ships. Barron claimed his profitable business had been severely damaged, and he sued the city of Baltimore to compensate him for the financial losses it had caused.

The Issue

Barron claimed that the city of Baltimore had violated his constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment, which says that “private property” shall not “be taken for public use without just compensation.” Barron's claim raised this question: Could the 5th Amendment, or any other part of the federal Bill of Rights, be used to limit the powers of a state government? or does the Bill of Rights restrain only the federal government?

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution applied only to the federal government. This, he said, was the original intention of the framers of the first 10 amendments. Thus, the 5th Amendment could not be used by Barron to require Baltimore to pay him “just compensation” for taking his property. According to Marshall, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the case, and so it was dismissed.

Significance

This decision legally established the widely held view that the federal Bill of Rights was intended by its framers in 1789 to bind only the federal government. The constitutional issue of this case was settled until passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which was designed to limit the powers of state governments in order to protect the rights of individuals. However, the Supreme Court did not begin to use the 14th Amendment to incorporate, or apply, parts of the federal Bill of Rights to state governments until the second quarter of the 20th century, beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925).

See also Incorporation doctrine

Sources

• Fred W. Friendly and Martha J. H. Elliott. “Barron's Wharf: The First Test of the Bill of Rights”, in The Constitution: That Delicate Balance (New York: Random House, 1984).
• Burnham Holmes, The Fifth Amendment (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Silver Burdett, 1991)

Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 32 U.S. 243 (1833), 7–0. Barron claimed that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbade the taking of his property by Baltimore without just compensation. When Baltimore refused to pay, Barron brought suit. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion held that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was intended only to restrain the federal government. The holding in effect was overturned by decisions of the Court in the twentieth century that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to "incorporate" various provisions of the Bill of Rights to prevent any state or locality from denying its citizens due process or the equal protection of the laws.

Bibliography

Amar, Akhil Reed. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.

Presser, Stephen B. Recapturing the Constitution: Race, Religion, and Abortion Reconsidered. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1994.

—Stephen B. Presser

Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 11, 1833 Decided February 16, 1833
Full case name	John Barron, survivor of John Craig, for the use of Luke Tiernan, Executor of John Craig v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Citations	32 U.S. 243 (more) 8 L. Ed. 672
Prior history	Accepted on writ of error to the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of the State of Maryland.
Holding
State governments are not bound by the Fifth Amendment's requirement for just compensation in cases of eminent domain.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices William Johnson · Gabriel Duvall Joseph Story · Smith Thompson John McLean · Henry Baldwin
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall
Overruled by
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.

John Barron co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.

The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held "[t]hese [first ten] amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.

The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 32

References

• Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
• Edward C. Papenfuse, Outline, Notes and Documents Concerning Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, http://mdhistory.net/msaref06/barron/index.html

External links

• Full text of the decision & case resources from Justia & Northwestern-Oyez
• Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com
• Original Maryland lower court documents with outline courtesy of the Maryland State Archives, http;//mdsa.net

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)