Constitutional Law
32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
Study notes for Barron v. Baltimore: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not apply to state and local governments.
In Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of whether the protections in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, applied to state and local governments. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit only the federal government, thus leaving states free to enact their laws regarding property without federal interference. Marshall's decision underscores the importance of federalism and the limited scope of the Constitution as it was originally understood in the early 19th century.
This case is crucial for understanding the evolution of constitutional doctrine concerning state powers. It highlights the historical context in which the Supreme Court operated and the gradual incorporation of Bill of Rights protections against state infringement through later decisions involving the Fourteenth Amendment. Students should appreciate the long-term implications of this case in shaping the relationship between federal and state governance.
Barron’s Bypass – Bill of Rights Bans Federal Interference.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago | Chicago, Burlington incorporated the Takings Clause through the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to state actions. |
| Gitlow v. New York | Gitlow extended First Amendment protections to the states, showing a shift from Barron's holding. |
| McDonald v. City of Chicago | McDonald held that the Second Amendment is applicable to states, contrasting Barron's emphasis on federal versus state powers. |
Limiting the application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government allows states to maintain autonomy and address local needs without federal intervention.
Not applying the Takings Clause to states can lead to arbitrary state power over property rights, potentially leading to injustices against property owners.
Barron v. Baltimore often appears on exams to illustrate the principle of federalism and the historical limitations of the Bill of Rights prior to the incorporation doctrine. It may also be presented in contrast to later cases that applied these rights to the states.