← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Barron v. Baltimore (Bill of Rights MD, 1833)

No. 1:11-cv-03494 SCOTUS · Decided Teaching/Historical SCOTUS
Decided: Jan 9, 2013
Court
Supreme Court
mdd
Judge
Ellen L. Hollander
Decided
Jan 9, 2013
Filed
Dec 5, 2011
Filed (CL)
Dec 5, 2011
CL Status
terminated

Legal Issues

Bill of Rights incorporation; Fifth Amendment; state action

BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos


The Facts

John Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor. The City of Baltimore diverted streams during street construction, causing silt and sand to accumulate near his wharf, rendering it unusable. Barron sued Baltimore for compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, claiming the city had effectively taken his property without just compensation. The Maryland courts ruled against him.

The Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against uncompensated takings of private property apply to state and local governments, or only to the federal government?

The Rules

U.S. Const. amend. V Fifth Amendment - Takings Clause

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) Non-Application of Bill of Rights to States

The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, not to state and local governments.

The Application

History

Barron's claim failed because he sought to invoke the Fifth Amendment against a state and local entity the City of Baltimore rather than the federal government. Although the diversion of streams and resulting accumulation of silt arguably deprived him of the use and value of his wharf, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause simply did not apply to state and local governmental action. The Court held that Barron's only recourse, if any, would have been through state law and state remedies, not federal constitutional protections. This meant that even significant injuries to property caused by municipal governments fell outside the scope of Fifth Amendment protection.

The Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government and does not constrain state and local governments. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Bill of Rights was adopted to protect citizens from federal overreach, not state action. This established the principle that most constitutional protections did not apply to the states, a rule not substantially changed until the incorporation doctrine developed in the 20th century.

SCOTUS TMR-9fa6d9b6 May 28, 2026

Cited By (12)

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support