Barron v. Baltimore. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court established a precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments .
As a result, large quantities of dirt and sand were swept downstream into the harbor, causing problems for wharf owners, including John Barron, who depended on deep water to accommodate vessels. His business damaged, Barron sued the city of Baltimore to compensate for his financial losses.
Barron claimed that the city’s activities violated the Fifth Amendment takings clause—that is, the city’s development efforts effectively allowed it to take his property without just compensation. Barron sued for $20,000, but the county court awarded him only $4,500.
John Barron was a co-owner of a lucrative wharf in Baltimore harbor. The wharf was profitable because of the deep water surrounding it, allowing for large cargo vessels to dock.
Barron v. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation.
Chief Justice John MarshallIn a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. The decision stood in contrast with many of the major landmark decisions of the Marshall Court that expanded national power.
Barron claimed the city's actions violated the Fifth Amendment by taking his property without just compensation. The Baltimore county court found that Baltimore had deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, which were to be paid by the city in compensation.
Barron sued the City of Baltimore for losses, arguing that he was deprived of his property without the due process afforded him by the Fifth Amendment.
The Barron decision effectively prevented many state cases from making their way to the federal courts. It also left the states free to disregard the Bill of Rights in their relationships with their citizens, who were left to rely instead on state laws and constitutions for protection of their rights.
Baltimore (1833) The Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the actions of states. This decision limited the Bill of Rights to the actions of Congress alone.
Facts of the case Baltimore wharf owner John Barron alleged that construction by the city had diverted water flow in the harbor area. He argued that sand accumulations in the harbor deprived Barron of deep waters, which reduced his profits.
In the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights restrained only the national government, not the states and cities.
672 (U.S. 1833), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution bound only the federal government and was thus inapplicable to actions taken by state and local governments. In 1868 the states ratified the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT in part to nullify the Supreme Court's holding in Barron v.
The most famous use of the metaphor was by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, Jefferson declared that when the American people adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.”
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court established the principle of “dual citizenship,” holding that persons were citizens of the national government and state government separately and that the Bill of Rights thus did not apply to the states.
The most important difference between these two cases, was that in Barron V. Baltimore the court ruled that if a state or a city violates a right protected by the federal Bill or Rights, then there is no penatlt and bithing happens because it only applies to the National Government.
Baltimore: Barron, a co-owner of a once-profitable wharf in Baltimore Harbor, sued the Mayor and City of Baltimore. Barron claimed that city expansion resulted in sand accumulating at his wharf, making it lose all value.
Barron argued that the city’s actions amounted to a taking of his private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal government, not to the States. Barron v. Baltimore Case Brief.
Barron sued the Mayor and City of Baltimore to recover his financial loss because eventually the wharf was of little value.
The wharf was profitable because of the deep water surrounding it, allowing for large cargo vessels to dock. In order to expand and grow, the City of Baltimore diverted the flow of certain streams and paved many streets. As a result, a great deal of sand ...
Procedural History: The trial court found for Barron and awarded him $4,500. The State appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision. Barron then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitution do not use language that would lead the Court to believe that they were meant to apply to the States. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the State of Maryland in the present case.
Indeed, the Court uses several examples from Article I, sections 9 and 10 to indicate that the intent of the framers, and the language of the Constitution, are directed solely at what the Federal government can and cannot do . The States, by contrast, have their own constitutions and may govern themselves accordingly.
243 (1833), a landmark decision that influenced U.S. constitutional law for almost a century, limited the reach of the Bill of Rights to the national government. The Supreme Court reasoned that the framers of the Constitution did not intend the Bill of Rights to extend to state actions.
Barron claimed that the city’s activities violated the Fifth Amendment takings clause—that is, the city’s development efforts effectively allowed it to take his property without just compensation. Barron sued for $20,000, but the county court awarded him only $4,500.
By Richard L. Pacelle Jr. Baltimore Harbor as seen from Federal Hill in 1831. The Harbor was involved in the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore which decided that the Bill of Rights extended only to the federal government, not state and local ones.
As a result, large quantities of dirt and sand were swept downstream into the harbor, causing problems for wharf owners, including John Barron, who depended on deep water to accommodate vessels.
Some sponsors were intent on ensuring that this amendment applied some or all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. Although the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Barron , the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, beginning with the incorporation of the takings clause in Chicago, Burlington, ...
Indeed, the Court had not even required Maryland’s attorney general, Roger B. Taney (Marshall’s eventual successor), to appear for the state. Marshall argued that the drafters of the Bill of Rights were specifically trying to halt potential abuses by the central government.
Supreme Court said Bill of Rights did not apply to state and local governments. When the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed that decision, Barron took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the case raised the constitutional question of whether the protections of the Fifth Amendment (and more generally of the Bill of Rights) ...
On all points, the decision of Baltimore county court was against the defendants, and a verdict for $4,500 was rendered for the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the court of appeals, which reversed the judgment of Baltimore county court, and did not remand the case to that court for a further trial.
This meant that Barron was not entitled to damages for his property loss from the city under the Fifth Amendment provision on just compensation for a government taking.
According to Barron, this had affected the value of his wharf because the deposits of sand and earth that resulted from the construction made the water shallow. Fewer vessels and smaller vessels now ...
At the trial of the cause in the Baltimore county court, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the original and natural course of the streams, the various works of the corporation from time to time to turn them in the direction of this wharf, and the ruinous consequences of these measures to the interests of the plaintiff.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements.