Baltimore, Maryland 1815
John Barron owns a deep-water wharf that was among the most profitable in
Baltimore Harbor. What’s that? You don’t know what a wharf is? Well,
that’s perfectly understandable. I imagine most of the young folks ain’t talking about
wharfs these days. A wharf is a safe area for a ship to dock and unload or load stuff.
Anyway, in 1815, Baltimore began a big renovation project to modernize the
city’s infrastructure. The city began paving streets, building embankments,
and diverting waterways in order to prevent flooding and stuff.
While the city was better off after these improvements, John Barron and his wharf
business were not. You see, these improvements caused lots of sand to wash down into Baltimore
Harbor. After seven years of this, so much sand had accumulated in the harbor that the waters
around Barron’s wharf were now too shallow for most ships to dock. His business was failing.
Desperate, Barron sued the city of Baltimore to make up for his losses. He claimed the city had
violated his 5th Amendment rights. Specifically, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment,
which says that private property will not be taken for public use without “just compensation.”
By the way, the government taking private property for public use is also commonly
known as “eminent domain.” Anyway, Barron said the city’s destruction of his wharf fell under
eminent domain, and he sued for $20,000, which is about $421,000 in today’s money. He won the case,
but the Baltimore County court gave him $4,500, or $105,000 in today’s money.
Not only that, the city appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and IT reversed the decision,
siding with Baltimore. So Barron appealed again, but this process took years. Finally,
the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case, hearing oral arguments in February 1833.
The Court had two big questions to answer. First, does the 5th Amendment prevent LOCAL governments
from taking private property for public use without just compensation? And second, did the
Bill of Rights AS A WHOLE apply to state and local laws, or did they only apply to federal laws, yo?
Well the answer to both questions, as it turns out, was “no.” On February 16, 1833, the Supreme
Court announced it had unanimously sided with Baltimore. It said that, not only does the 5th
Amendment not apply to the states, but NONE of the Bill of Rights did. Chief Justice John Marshall,
aka “Lil’ John,” again wrote the opinion of this decision, and indeed he struggled with
it. Ultimately, though, Marshall argued that the authors of the Bill of Rights were specifically
trying to stop potential abuses by the federal government, not state and local governments.
Barron v. Baltimore was significant because it stated that the Bill of Rights did not
restrict whatever state and local governments did. This decision single handedly prevented
many state cases from ever making their way to federal courts. It reversed a trend of
major Supreme Court decisions during the Marshall era that had generally increased
the power of the federal government. The state governments finally had a big win.
Not only that, after the American Civil War, the decision was a big influence on
the creation of the 14th Amendment, which future Court justices indeed referenced
when justifying that the Bill of Rights could restrict what state and local governments did.
I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
So which Supreme Court case should I cover next for this series? Oh I read those comments. I’m
a strange fellow. And yeah, SUPREME COURT BRIEF is a series. There are 68
other episodes so far. I dare you to check them all out. Thanks for viewing, you viewer you.