Appellant
John Barron
Appellee
The mayor and city council of Baltimore, Maryland
Appellant's Claim
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required Baltimore to compensateBarron for having "taken" his property by significantly compromising the usefulness of his wharf.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Charles Mayer
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Roger Brooke Taney
Justices for the Court
Gabriel Duvall, William Johnson, John Marshall (writing for the Court), JohnMcLean, Joseph Story, Smith Thompson
Justices Dissenting
None (Henry Baldwin did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
16 February 1833
Decision
The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case because the Fifth Amendment applied only to the federal government and not to the states.
Significance
Barron established the principle that the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") do not limit the powers of the states. This legal doctrine was not reversed until the twentieth century, when theSupreme Court gradually incorporated the Bill of Rights into the FourteenthAmendment.
Early in the nineteenth century, John Barron and John Craig owned a large andprofitable wharf at Baltimore, Maryland. The older sections of Baltimore's harbor often became filled with stagnant water, garbage, and debris. Trying toend this health hazard, the city council carried out an extensive public works program between 1815 and 1821. Contractors regraded and paved streets, built embankments, and diverted streams toward the wharf.
The City Makes Barron's Wharf Useless
During storms, these streams carried sand and silt down to the harbor and deposited it in front of Barron's wharf. The water grew steadily shallower untilno sizable vessel could use the wharf. In 1822, Barron sued the city in theBaltimore County Court, asking for money to compensate him for the loss of his business. (John Craig was deceased by then, and Barron represented his former partner's interests as well as his own.)
Barron argued that Baltimore had violated his property rights under state law, but the city's attorneys denied any liability. The Maryland legislature hadgranted the city power to pave streets and regulate the flow of water. The inadvertent silting up of the harbor was a general nuisance affecting all thecity's inhabitants and not directed toward Barron in particular.
Barron won his case in the Baltimore County Court, which awarded him $4,500 in damages. The city appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. When it ruled against Barron on all points, his lawyers carriedthe case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error. The records do not explain why the Supreme Court did not hear Barron's appeal until 1833, some tenyears after the original suit in the state courts.
Charles Mayer, Barron's attorney, went to Washington, D.C. prepared to present two separate arguments. The city derived its powers from the state, and itsacts had wronged Barron under state law. Alternatively, Barron was a citizenof the United States. As such, he was owed protection under the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which forbids the taking of private property for public use "without just compensation." The Supreme Court had jurisdiction because this constitutional question was involved.
To defend its interests, Maryland sent one of its legal giants, Roger BrookeTaney, the state's attorney general. Shortly afterwards, President Andrew Jackson raised Taney to U.S. attorney general. He eventually succeeded Marshallas chief justice of the Supreme Court.
When the day came for oral arguments, the Court told Attorney Mayer to discuss only whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment.When Mayer finished, it then was Taney's turn to speak for Maryland. But Chief Justice Marshall stopped him short before he could address the Court.
The Bill of Rights Does Not Apply to the States
When the decision was given, Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court. Marshall dismissed Barron's suit because the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Barron had appealed from a state court. Thus the Supreme Court could act only if it were true that the Fifth Amendment restrained the state of Maryland. But none of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.
"The question thus presented is," Marshall began, "of great importance, but not of much difficulty." He then advanced three arguments in support of his conclusion--one based on the nature of the Constitution, one on its language, and one on its history.
In his first argument, Marshall repeated his often expressed union theory ofpopular sovereignty. Through state constitutions, the people of each state united and directly created a state government. Through the U.S. Constitution,the people of the United States came together and created a general government. The constitution the people had given each level of government determinedthat level's powers.
The U.S. Constitution created a federal government, and the people did the creating. Thus, the powers and limitations they conferred through that Constitution were "naturally" and "necessarily" applicable only to the federal government the Constitution created.
The concept of sovereignty with the people helped explain the Constitution'slanguage. The Constitution contains three kinds of statements limiting power,Marshall declared. Some statements directly mention the federal government,while others mention the states. Yet a third type, which includes the Fifth Amendment, places limits on power framed in general terms, without specifically mentioning either the federal or the state government.
These general limitations, Marshall argued, must be read as applying only tothe federal government. As proof he quoted Article I, Section 9: "No bill ofattainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." This is immediately followedby Article I, Section 10: "No state shall . . . pass any bill of attainder .. . " Obviously, the general limit in Section 9 applied only to the federalgovernment. If it also affected the states, Section 10 simply would not be needed.
To further explain his interpretation, Marshall presented a third argument, one based on the history of the Bill of Rights. Had the people, he noted, wanted to limit state governments, they would have called state constitutional conventions. Such conventions provided a much simpler procedure than the "unwieldy and cumbrous machinery" of amending the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, whenthe Constitution was ratified, the Bill of Rights was added precisely because the people feared the federal government and not because they dreaded abuses of power by state governments. This reason for opposing ratification of theConstitution was "universally understood" and "part of the history of the day."
Barron was John Marshall's last constitutional opinion, written when he was already in failing health and profoundly worried about the state of theunion. Federal-state relations were in a crisis. In 1832, a convention in South Carolina had nullified a congressional tariff law. The same year, Georgiahad refused to enforce a Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia) affecting Native American rights.
While Marshall was sensitive to these political conflicts, his decision was historically accurate. The surviving records of the conventions ratifying theConstitution supported his statements. So did a significant body of previousdecisions by state courts.
As Marshall stated, Barron was of enormous significance. Later courtsaccepted the decision and expanded it to all of the Bill of Rights. Thus theyprevented the federal government from interfering when a state allegedly violated an individual's civil rights.
After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) required thestates to provide "due process" ("nor shall any State deprive any person oflife, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") to its citizens. Since the 1920s, the courts have incorporated various rights into the Fourteenth Amendment by defining them as essential to "due process." But the process has been slow, inconsistent, and controversial.
American law and American society might have evolved in entirely different ways had Marshall ruled otherwise in Barron. Yet his decision was totally consistent with the beliefs of the Constitution's authors. Firmly convincedthat local officials posed little threat to individual rights, the nation'sfounders primarily feared the distant and oppressive federal government.
Related Cases
John Barron
Appellee
The mayor and city council of Baltimore, Maryland
Appellant's Claim
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required Baltimore to compensateBarron for having "taken" his property by significantly compromising the usefulness of his wharf.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Charles Mayer
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Roger Brooke Taney
Justices for the Court
Gabriel Duvall, William Johnson, John Marshall (writing for the Court), JohnMcLean, Joseph Story, Smith Thompson
Justices Dissenting
None (Henry Baldwin did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
16 February 1833
Decision
The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case because the Fifth Amendment applied only to the federal government and not to the states.
Significance
Barron established the principle that the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") do not limit the powers of the states. This legal doctrine was not reversed until the twentieth century, when theSupreme Court gradually incorporated the Bill of Rights into the FourteenthAmendment.
Early in the nineteenth century, John Barron and John Craig owned a large andprofitable wharf at Baltimore, Maryland. The older sections of Baltimore's harbor often became filled with stagnant water, garbage, and debris. Trying toend this health hazard, the city council carried out an extensive public works program between 1815 and 1821. Contractors regraded and paved streets, built embankments, and diverted streams toward the wharf.
The City Makes Barron's Wharf Useless
During storms, these streams carried sand and silt down to the harbor and deposited it in front of Barron's wharf. The water grew steadily shallower untilno sizable vessel could use the wharf. In 1822, Barron sued the city in theBaltimore County Court, asking for money to compensate him for the loss of his business. (John Craig was deceased by then, and Barron represented his former partner's interests as well as his own.)
Barron argued that Baltimore had violated his property rights under state law, but the city's attorneys denied any liability. The Maryland legislature hadgranted the city power to pave streets and regulate the flow of water. The inadvertent silting up of the harbor was a general nuisance affecting all thecity's inhabitants and not directed toward Barron in particular.
Barron won his case in the Baltimore County Court, which awarded him $4,500 in damages. The city appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. When it ruled against Barron on all points, his lawyers carriedthe case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error. The records do not explain why the Supreme Court did not hear Barron's appeal until 1833, some tenyears after the original suit in the state courts.
Charles Mayer, Barron's attorney, went to Washington, D.C. prepared to present two separate arguments. The city derived its powers from the state, and itsacts had wronged Barron under state law. Alternatively, Barron was a citizenof the United States. As such, he was owed protection under the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which forbids the taking of private property for public use "without just compensation." The Supreme Court had jurisdiction because this constitutional question was involved.
To defend its interests, Maryland sent one of its legal giants, Roger BrookeTaney, the state's attorney general. Shortly afterwards, President Andrew Jackson raised Taney to U.S. attorney general. He eventually succeeded Marshallas chief justice of the Supreme Court.
When the day came for oral arguments, the Court told Attorney Mayer to discuss only whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment.When Mayer finished, it then was Taney's turn to speak for Maryland. But Chief Justice Marshall stopped him short before he could address the Court.
The Bill of Rights Does Not Apply to the States
When the decision was given, Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court. Marshall dismissed Barron's suit because the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Barron had appealed from a state court. Thus the Supreme Court could act only if it were true that the Fifth Amendment restrained the state of Maryland. But none of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.
"The question thus presented is," Marshall began, "of great importance, but not of much difficulty." He then advanced three arguments in support of his conclusion--one based on the nature of the Constitution, one on its language, and one on its history.
In his first argument, Marshall repeated his often expressed union theory ofpopular sovereignty. Through state constitutions, the people of each state united and directly created a state government. Through the U.S. Constitution,the people of the United States came together and created a general government. The constitution the people had given each level of government determinedthat level's powers.
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 establisheda constitution for itself, and . . . provided such limitations and restitutions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. Thepeople of the United States formed such a government for the United States asthey supposed . . . best calculated to promote their interests.
The U.S. Constitution created a federal government, and the people did the creating. Thus, the powers and limitations they conferred through that Constitution were "naturally" and "necessarily" applicable only to the federal government the Constitution created.
The concept of sovereignty with the people helped explain the Constitution'slanguage. The Constitution contains three kinds of statements limiting power,Marshall declared. Some statements directly mention the federal government,while others mention the states. Yet a third type, which includes the Fifth Amendment, places limits on power framed in general terms, without specifically mentioning either the federal or the state government.
These general limitations, Marshall argued, must be read as applying only tothe federal government. As proof he quoted Article I, Section 9: "No bill ofattainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." This is immediately followedby Article I, Section 10: "No state shall . . . pass any bill of attainder .. . " Obviously, the general limit in Section 9 applied only to the federalgovernment. If it also affected the states, Section 10 simply would not be needed.
To further explain his interpretation, Marshall presented a third argument, one based on the history of the Bill of Rights. Had the people, he noted, wanted to limit state governments, they would have called state constitutional conventions. Such conventions provided a much simpler procedure than the "unwieldy and cumbrous machinery" of amending the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, whenthe Constitution was ratified, the Bill of Rights was added precisely because the people feared the federal government and not because they dreaded abuses of power by state governments. This reason for opposing ratification of theConstitution was "universally understood" and "part of the history of the day."
Barron was John Marshall's last constitutional opinion, written when he was already in failing health and profoundly worried about the state of theunion. Federal-state relations were in a crisis. In 1832, a convention in South Carolina had nullified a congressional tariff law. The same year, Georgiahad refused to enforce a Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia) affecting Native American rights.
While Marshall was sensitive to these political conflicts, his decision was historically accurate. The surviving records of the conventions ratifying theConstitution supported his statements. So did a significant body of previousdecisions by state courts.
As Marshall stated, Barron was of enormous significance. Later courtsaccepted the decision and expanded it to all of the Bill of Rights. Thus theyprevented the federal government from interfering when a state allegedly violated an individual's civil rights.
After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) required thestates to provide "due process" ("nor shall any State deprive any person oflife, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") to its citizens. Since the 1920s, the courts have incorporated various rights into the Fourteenth Amendment by defining them as essential to "due process." But the process has been slow, inconsistent, and controversial.
American law and American society might have evolved in entirely different ways had Marshall ruled otherwise in Barron. Yet his decision was totally consistent with the beliefs of the Constitution's authors. Firmly convincedthat local officials posed little threat to individual rights, the nation'sfounders primarily feared the distant and oppressive federal government.
Related Cases
- Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
- Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).
Further Readings
- Currie, David. The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1888. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
- Johnson, John W. Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690-1990: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.
- White, George. History of the Supreme Court of the United States. Vols. III-IV: The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815-1835. New York: Macmillan, 1988.
User Comments Add a comment…