Barron v. Baltimore
 | |
| Barron v. Mayor and City of Baltimore | |
| Reference: 32 U.S. 243 | |
| Term: 1833 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 8-11, 1833 Decided: February 16, 1833 | |
| Outcome | |
| Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of Maryland ruling stood[1] | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice John Marshall • Gabriel Duvall • William Johnson, Jr. • John McLean • Joseph Story • Smith Thompson | |
Barron v. Baltimore was decided on February 16, 1833, by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was not binding on state governments. The case concerned a Baltimore development project that diverted streams to accommodate the construction of new buildings in the city. A wharf owner claimed the diverted streams increased the amount of sand in the harbor and damaged his business. He argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment and took his property without just damages. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Fifth Amendment only restricted the federal government and federal courts could not claim jurisdiction in the case.
Why it matters: The court's opinion in Barron was understood to hold that the Bill of Rights was not binding on state governments. In later decisions, the Supreme Court incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. For more information, click here.
Background
Leading up to the lawsuit, Baltimore, Maryland, undertook a series of urban construction projects in which it diverted certain streams of water to accommodate expansion within the city. The diverted streams went towards the harbor, increasing the amount of sand and dirt deposited there.[2]
John Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore. Barron sued the city, alleging the diverted streams and increased sand damaged his business. Barron claimed the city's actions violated the Fifth Amendment by taking his property without just compensation.[2]
A 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. The Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of Maryland, a state appellate court of that era, reversed the county court's judgment and did not remand the case for retrial.
Barron subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States to seek a reversal of the appellate court's ruling. He argued the actions of the Baltimore mayor and city council constituted violations of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[3]
Oral argument
Oral argument was conducted between February 8 and 11, 1833.[4]
Decision
The case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, meaning the court had no authority to hear the case.[4]
Opinion
| Federalism |
|---|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Opinion of the court
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall stated at the outset of the opinion that jurisdictional issues were central to Barron's appeal. "The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act ... If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause," he wrote.
The 25th section of the Judiciary Act only gave federal courts the authority to decide cases pertaining to state laws if they violated federal law or the U.S. Constitution. In the case of Barron, the court only had jurisdiction if it could be shown that the state violated the Fifth Amendment. Marshall argued that since the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states, the court did not have jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act.[3]
Chief Justice Marshall dismissed Barron's claim, writing:[3]
| “ |
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. 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. 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. 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 we think 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. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest. [5] |
” |
Impact
The court's opinion in Barron was understood, by inference, to hold that the Bill of Rights was not binding on state governments. This opinion is still considered valid because the U.S. Supreme Court has not made every provision of the Bill of Rights binding on states, though many protections of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to states through decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has held in these cases that for a state to deny certain protections of the Bill of Rights would deny the liberty guaranteed to all persons against state action under the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, 35 years after the court's opinion in Barron.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ The Supreme Court dismissed the case after deciding it did not have jurisdiction to decide it, leaving the appellate court's decision intact.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The First Amendment Encyclopedia, "Barron v. Baltimore (1833)," accessed November 19, 2019
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Supreme Court of the United States (via Justia.com), Barron v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, decided February 16, 1833
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Oyez, "Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore," accessed May 27, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Active justices |
Chief justice: Roberts | ||
| Senior justices | |||
| Former chief justices |
Burger • Chase • Ellsworth • Fuller • Hughes • Jay • Marshall • Rehnquist • Rutledge • Stone • Taft • Taney • Vinson • Waite • Warren • White | ||
| Former associate justices |
Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Ginsburg • Goldberg • Gray • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods | ||
