Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1833

Barron Ex Rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore

32 U.S. 243 | 8 L. Ed. 672 | 7 Pet. 243 | 1833 U.S. LEXIS 346

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case held that the Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, originally limited only the federal government—not the states.

Background

John Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore Harbor. He alleged that Baltimore’s street-improvement projects diverted streams and deposited large quantities of sand and earth near his wharf, leaving the water too shallow for vessels and substantially impairing the wharf’s value and use.

Barron sought damages from the City under Maryland law, contending that the destruction of his wharf access amounted to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The Maryland state-court proceedings ultimately produced a judgment adverse to Barron, and he brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court. He argued that the state-authorized actions violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the Maryland judgment under section 25 of the Judiciary Act.

Holding

No. Because the Fifth Amendment did not apply to Maryland, Barron identified no federal constitutional conflict that gave the Court jurisdiction over the state judgment.

Reasoning

The Court explained that its authority to review a state-court judgment depended on the case falling within section 25 of the Judiciary Act. Barron’s asserted basis for federal review was that Maryland’s laws and Baltimore’s conduct conflicted with the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation.

reasoning

If the Fifth Amendment restricted only the federal government, however, Maryland could not have violated that amendment. In that event, there was no federal constitutional question within the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, and the writ of error had to be dismissed.

Issue #2

Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause restricts state and local governments as well as the federal government.

Holding

No. The Fifth Amendment was a limitation on the federal government alone and did not apply to the states or to Baltimore acting under Maryland law.

Reasoning

Chief Justice Marshall began from the Constitution’s structure. The people of the United States created the federal Constitution for the federal government, while each state created its own constitution and chose the limits on its own government. A general constitutional limitation therefore naturally applies to the government created by the federal Constitution unless the text says otherwise.

reasoning

Article I reinforced that conclusion. Section 9 contains limitations on the national government, including a broadly worded ban on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Yet Section 10 separately and expressly provides that no state may pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. That contrast showed that general language in a federal restriction does not reach the states without words specifically directing it to do so.

reasoning

The Court also relied on the history of the Bill of Rights. The amendments were proposed in response to fears that the new national government would abuse its newly granted powers. They were meant to supply additional safeguards against federal, not state, encroachment. Had their framers intended to alter the powers of state governments, they would have said so plainly, as the original Constitution did when imposing direct restrictions on states.

reasoning

Accordingly, Maryland’s legislation was not repugnant to the federal Constitution merely because Barron alleged that it took property without compensation. The Court did not decide whether Maryland law or the Maryland Constitution afforded Barron a remedy; it held only that the federal Fifth Amendment did not provide one against the state.