Barron v. Baltimore

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore
ArgueDate= February 11
ArgueYear=1833
DecideDate= February 16
DecideYear=1833
FullName=John Barron, survivor of John Craig, for the use of Luke Tiernan, Executor of John Craig v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
USVol=32
USPage=243
Citation=8 L. Ed. 672
Prior=Accepted on writ of error to the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of the State of Maryland.
Subsequent=
Holding=State governments are not bound by the Fifth Amendment's requirement for just compensation in cases of eminent domain.
SCOTUS=1830-1834
Majority=Marshall
JoinMajority=
LawsApplied=
Overruled="Gitlow v. New York", ussc|268|652|1925

"Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore", 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.John Barron owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed.

The Supreme Court decided that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held " [t] hese [first ten] amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." "Barron v. Baltimore", 32 U.S. 243, 250.

The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of "Barron", most notably "United States v. Cruikshank", 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, "Barron" and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 32

References

* Jean Edward Smith, "John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation", New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
* Edward C. Papenfuse, "Outline, Notes and Documents Concerning Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, http://mdhistory.net/msaref06/barron/index.html "

External links

* [http://www.justia.us/us/32/243/case.html Full text of the decision & case resources from Justia & Northwestern-Oyez]
* [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com]
* [http://mdhistory.net/msaref06/barron/html/index.html Original Maryland lower court documents with outline courtesy of the Maryland State Archives, http;//mdsa.net]