Barron v. Mayor & City of Baltimore
Citation and Court
32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
John Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor. The city diverted streams in the course of street construction, causing sand and earth to accumulate near the wharf and making it too shallow for vessels. Barron sued the city for damages, arguing the city had taken his property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Issue
Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause — and by extension the other provisions of the Bill of Rights — applies to state and local governments, or only to the federal government.
Holding
The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, not to state or local governments. The Fifth Amendment’s just compensation requirement does not constrain what the City of Baltimore may do.
Rule / Doctrine
The provisions of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution were intended solely as limitations on the exercise of power by the federal government, not as limitations on state action. This is the foundational rule against the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states — a rule later substantially displaced by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Significance
Barron is the pre-Civil War baseline case, establishing original constitutional meaning that the Bill of Rights did not constrain state governments. It explains why the Fourteenth Amendment was needed to apply federal constitutional protections against the states, and why the subsequent development of selective incorporation doctrine through Gitlow v. New York (1925) and its progeny was constitutionally significant.