Judicial branch · Landmark case
Barron v. Baltimore
32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account. This ruling’s practical effect has since been significantly narrowed by later cases — read the “why this finding matters” section below for that context.
The Court held that the Bill of Rights restrains only the federal government, not state or local governments. Because the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause didn’t apply to the City of Baltimore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear a property owner’s claim against the city under it.
Background
Baltimore diverted several streams during street construction, sending sand and gravel downstream into the harbor near John Barron’s wharf, ruining its depth and value for shipping. Barron sued the city, arguing it had taken his property for public use without the just compensation the Fifth Amendment requires. A Maryland trial court awarded him damages; an appeals court reversed. Barron took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Marshall, in one of his final opinions before retiring, held the question was “of great importance, but not of much difficulty”: the Bill of Rights was written and ratified specifically to restrain fears about the new federal government, not existing state governments, which already had their own constitutions and protections. Because the Fifth Amendment simply didn’t apply to Baltimore, the Court had no jurisdiction over Barron’s claim at all.
The ruling that made the Fourteenth Amendment necessary.
For over 30 years, Barron meant Americans had no federal constitutional protection against their own state governments — only against Washington. After the Civil War, Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause specifically to change this. Starting in the late 1800s, the Supreme Court began “incorporating” most Bill of Rights protections against the states one right at a time through that clause — a process still referenced by name (“incorporation doctrine”) whenever a new Bill of Rights protection is applied to the states today.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Marshall, C.J. (opinion of the Court) |
|---|---|
| Join | Unanimous |
| Dissent | None |
| Later modified by | Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and the incorporation-doctrine cases that followed |
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.
Chief Justice Marshall · Barron v. Baltimore
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
One of Chief Justice Marshall’s last major opinions, and a rare instance where the famously nationalist Marshall Court limited, rather than expanded, federal constitutional reach.
Fourteenth Amendment
Written specifically to answer the gap Barron left open — without this amendment, the Bill of Rights still wouldn’t apply to state governments today.
State & local government
The direct subject of the case: whether state and local governments are bound by the same limits the federal government is.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Oyez
Case abstract and justice votes.
Opinion text (Justia)
Readable public text of the case.
GovInfo · U.S. Courts
Official publications and related federal court materials.
Related research paths
Fourteenth Amendment
The 1868 amendment that eventually closed the gap this case left open.
Incorporation doctrine
How the Supreme Court applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states, one right at a time, over the following century.
Fifth Amendment
The Just Compensation Clause at issue in Barron’s original claim.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings that define the relationship between federal and state power.