## Facts

- John Barron owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor area.
- Baltimore undertook public works that altered nearby streams and water flow into the harbor.
- The project caused deposits of sand and earth near Barron’s wharf, reducing water depth and limiting ships’ ability to access the wharf.
- Barron alleged the city’s actions effectively took or damaged his property for public use without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
- A Maryland trial court awarded Barron \$4,500 in damages.
- A Maryland appellate court reversed, denying recovery.
- Barron sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court by writ of error.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause applies to state and local governments.
2. Whether the federal Bill of Rights generally limits state governments absent express constitutional language.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Maryland appellate court’s judgment against Barron.
- The Court held the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause does not apply to state or municipal action.
- Because no federal constitutional limitation governed the city’s conduct, the case presented no federal question warranting Supreme Court review on Barron’s theory.

## Legal Principles

- The first ten amendments are limitations on the federal government, not on state governments, unless a provision expressly applies to the states.
- When the Constitution intends to bind states, it does so explicitly; absent such text, restrictions are presumed federal-only.
- Claims that a state or municipality took property without compensation, when based solely on the Fifth Amendment, do not establish a federal constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Fifth Amendment and the Bill of Rights did not constrain state or municipal governments, so Barron could not obtain just-compensation relief under the federal Constitution for alleged property harm caused by Baltimore’s public works.


Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)