Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Background
In Baltimore, Craig and Barron owned an extensive and highly productive wharf, which sat near the deepest water in the harbor. When the city re-graded and paved certain streets, the new construction diverted run-off water and accompanying soil into the wharf. As a result, the wharf lost its value when it slowly filled to a level that rendered it unusable for large capacity ships.
Barron sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, alleging that he was entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment because the filling of the wharf as a result of the street paving constituted a taking of private property for public use.
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.
Equally important, the Fifth Amendment also prohibits the taking of private property "for public use, without just compensation." In Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court had to decide whether this clause and, by extension, the entire Bill of Rights applied just to the federal government or also to the state goverments.
The US Constitution Generally Does Not Limit State Governments
The trial court ruled in the plaintiff's favor and issued a $4,500 judgment against the defendant. When the court of appeals reversed the lower court decision, Barron filed a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Marshall began with a recitation of constitutional history. He stated that the nation established the Constitution for the national government, and not for the individual state governments. "Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated." Furthermore, if "the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves."
Having stated this, the Justice pointed out that this does not mean that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not restrict state rights. Instead, such provisions applicable to the states expressly so indicate. For example, Article I, section 10, 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 Court held 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." Since the case did not arise under the Constitution, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the writ of error.