Minnesota
How Barron v. Baltimore applies in Minnesota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
Minnesota follows the principle established in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights initially only applied to the federal government. However, Minnesota law has also evolved to actively incorporate many rights as enforceable against the state under the Minnesota Constitution.
In Minnesota, the state constitution provides for more expansive protections of individual rights, often mirroring or exceeding the protections found in the federal Constitution, especially regarding due process and takings.
Minnesota courts recognized the due process rights of individuals when considering the state's interference in personal affairs.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a right to privacy exists under Minnesota law that can protect citizens against unreasonable government intrusion.
The court reiterated that Minnesota's Constitution may provide broader rights than the federal Constitution, specifically within the context of property rights.
While Barron v. Baltimore holds that the Bill of Rights does not limit state action, Minnesota's state constitution often provides more comprehensive protections. Unlike the federal application, Minnesota courts frequently interpret its constitution to encompass rights that offer greater safeguards to individual liberties.
Students should be aware of Minnesota's unique constitutional protections as they may provide the basis for exam questions regarding individual rights and state action.