Barron v. Baltimore Case Summary

The plaintiff in this case, John Barron, owned a wharf with John Craig in Baltimore Harbor in the State of Maryland. When Craig passed away, Barron retained the waterfront property. The wharf was extensive and highly productive because it sat near the harbor's deepest water.

Between 1815 and 1821, the City of Baltimore regraded and paved certain streets around the harbor. The new construction diverted runoff water and accompanying soil into the wharf, which lost value as it slowly filled to a level that rendered it unusable for large-capacity ships.

Barron filed a lawsuit against the mayor and city council of Baltimore, alleging that the defendants owed him just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. He argued the filling of the wharf constituted a taking of private property for public use.

The trial court ruled in the plaintiff's favor and issued a $4,500 judgment against the defendant. The defendant appealed the case, and the appellate court reversed the lower court decision. Barron filed a writ of error with the United States Supreme Court.

Issue

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is better known for the protections it offers to defendants in criminal matters. Indeed, most people probably have heard of double jeopardy and the right against self-incrimination.

The Fifth Amendment also prohibits the federal government from taking private property "for public use, without just compensation." The question here is whether this clause and, by extension, the entire Bill of Rights applies to local and state governments as well.

The U.S. Constitution Does Not Always Apply to State Governments

The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Initially, it did not apply to state governments. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), holding that citizens could not claim protection under the Bill of Rights in suits against the state. This changed in 1868 when Congress ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

Through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has incorporated many of these amendments to apply to the states via the due process clause.

At first glance, it may appear that each of the first ten amendments would apply to the states without question. This idea is known as "total incorporation." However, the Supreme Court has not adopted this view. Instead, it has extended portions of the Bill of Rights to the states through "selective incorporation."

One of the key questions before the court in Barron was whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment should apply to the states by incorporation.

Chief Justice Marshall’s Analysis

Chief Justice John Marshall began by reciting constitutional history. He stated that the Founders drafted the Constitution to establish the national government, not to bind the individual state governments. States had their own constitutions in place that limit and restrict state and local action.

However, the Justice pointed out that this does not mean that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can never restrict state rights. The Framers of the United States Constitution included specific language in some of the provisions stating that they were, in fact, applicable to the states.

For example, Article I Section 10 explicitly prohibits states from signing treaties, coining money, or passing ex post facto laws. In contrast, the Fifth Amendment does not expressly mandate that state governments provide just compensation when taking private property for public use.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause applies only to the federal government and not to state legislation.

Since the case did not arise under the Constitution, the Court found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the writ of error.

States and the Takings Clause

In 1897, the Supreme Court extended the takings clause to the states in Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago.

In this seminal case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to provide just compensation when they take property from citizens.