Barron v. Baltimore

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
Superseded by
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

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 that the 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.

Important quotations

• "The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states."

• The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."

• "Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention."

• "These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation 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."

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

• Works related to Barron v. Baltimore at Wikisource
• Full text of the decision & case resources from Justia & Northwestern-Oyez
• Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com
• Information on Barron v. Baltimore
• Full Opinion of Barron v. Baltimore (PDF)
• Original Maryland lower court documents with outline courtesy of the Maryland State Archives, http;//mdsa.net