Barron v. City of Baltimore

Supreme Court of the United States · 1833 · Constitutional Law

32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawFifth AmendmentTakings Clausestate actionfederalismBill of RightsSupreme Court jurisdictionJudiciary Act of 1789 section 25

Facts

The plaintiff in error argued that the case fell within the Fifth Amendment provision forbidding the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He contended that this constitutional protection should be construed to restrain state legislative power as well as the power of the United States. The defendants had relied at trial on several acts of the Maryland legislature. The jurisdictional question turned on whether the Fifth Amendment applied to those state acts.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation apply to state governments so as to make Maryland legislation reviewable here as repugnant to the United States Constitution? If not, does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the writ of error from the state court?

Rule

The limitations in the Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause, apply only to the federal government unless the Constitution expressly applies them to the states. In reviewing a state-court judgment under section 25 of the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction when the asserted constitutional provision does not restrain the state law at issue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Oregon legislature authorizes the City of Salem to condemn a strip of Elena Cruz's warehouse property for a flood-control channel. Elena receives no compensation and loses in the Oregon Supreme Court after arguing that the state statute violates the Fifth Amendment's requirement of just compensation.

If Elena seeks review in the Supreme Court of the United States based solely on the Fifth Amendment, what is the best result?

Explanation. The majority held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause restrains only the federal government, not the states. Because the asserted federal constitutional provision does not apply to the state law, there is no repugnancy between that law and the Constitution for purposes of review of a state-court judgment, so the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.