05/03/2014

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, a dockside owner in the Baltimore harbor, unproductively claimed that the Defendant’s, City of Baltimore, action of ruining the use of his wharf violated the proceeds clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because the Bill of Rights is irrelevant to the states.

Facts. Plaintiff, Barron, owned a dockside in Baltimore harbor that was ruined by acts of the Defendant, City of Baltimore. Plaintiff sued the Defendant claiming that the Defendant sidetracked the flow of water that resulted in large amounts of sand accumulating under Plaintiff’s wharf, thereby preventing vessels from using the dock. Plaintiff contended that the resulting damage to his dockside constituted a taking from the government without just return in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The trial court awarded Plaintiff damages, but the state appellate court reversed.

Issue. Whether the state’s action violated the earnings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Holding. Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since there is no repugnancy between the state’s actions and the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States also held that the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to the states. The Court reasoned that had the framers of the Bill of Rights intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have expressed that intention.

Dissent: none

lesson of the course. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the exercise of power of the federal government and is inappropriate to state legislation.

Case Information

Barron v. Baltimore

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
32 U.S. 243
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Syllabus

The provision in the Fifth Amendment