key term - Barron v. Baltimore

Definition

Barron v. Baltimore is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1833 that established the principle that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. In this case, John Barron sued the city of Baltimore for damages after the city’s actions resulted in the loss of his wharf's profitability. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of just compensation for property taken by the government was not applicable to state actions, thereby solidifying the concept of dual citizenship under federal and state law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1833, where the ruling was delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall.
2. The Court held that the Bill of Rights only limits the federal government and does not impose restrictions on state governments.
3. The decision effectively meant that states were free to regulate property rights without being bound by the protections of the Fifth Amendment.
4. This case laid the groundwork for future discussions regarding civil liberties and states' rights, influencing later cases on incorporation.
5. It wasn’t until 1925, with Gitlow v. New York, that the Supreme Court began to apply some First Amendment rights to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine.

Review Questions

• How did Barron v. Baltimore shape the understanding of federalism in relation to individual rights?
  • Barron v. Baltimore clarified that individual rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were primarily protections against federal action, not state action. This ruling reinforced a dual citizenship concept where individuals had separate rights under both federal and state laws. The outcome underscored a fundamental aspect of federalism by highlighting how states retained significant power over local governance without direct interference from federal constitutional protections.
• Evaluate how Barron v. Baltimore set a precedent for later Supreme Court cases regarding civil liberties.
  • Barron v. Baltimore established a significant precedent by firmly stating that protections in the Bill of Rights were not applicable to state actions. This created a legal landscape where states could enact laws that might infringe upon individual rights without violating the Constitution. Over time, this ruling prompted challenges that led to the development of the Incorporation Doctrine, which sought to apply those rights at the state level, as seen in cases like Gitlow v. New York.
• Critically analyze the implications of Barron v. Baltimore on modern interpretations of constitutional rights.
  • The implications of Barron v. Baltimore continue to resonate in modern constitutional law as it frames ongoing debates about the scope of individual rights against state versus federal authority. The initial ruling limited protections but set a stage for subsequent jurisprudence where courts gradually recognized that many freedoms must be upheld at both levels of government. As such, contemporary discussions about civil liberties often revolve around this foundational decision, examining how evolving interpretations have expanded protections for individuals against state encroachments while balancing federalism principles.

Related terms

Bill of Rights:

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which outline fundamental rights and liberties that protect individuals from government infringement.

Incorporation Doctrine: The legal doctrine that ensures that certain protections in the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Fifth Amendment:

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that, among other things, provides for just compensation when private property is taken for public use.