9/16/2016
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Background to the case
• John Barron owned
shipping wharf
(Baltimore)
• As Baltimore grew…
–sand accumulated & made
wharf WORTHLESS
–Sued city  should be
compensated for lost $$$
• By student name
Arguments from either side
• Barron
– Sand accumulated near
wharf due to city
expansion which limited
access for most ships to
his dock = loss of
revenue $$$
– Sued city & won but
later overturned
($4500)
• Baltimore
– Not responsibility for normal
expansion issues
– Doesn’t involve “just
compensation” from 5th
amendment
Garner Student
guesses on your
Supreme Court
decision
A WHARF
What’s at Stake?
THE
PROBLEM
 Does the
• The
Fifth Amendment
Fifth
Amendment
deny
the
says,
“nor shall
private
states
as well be
as the
national
property
taken
for
government
public use,
thewithout
right to take
just
compensation.”
private
property for public use
–Barron
wasn’t
without
justly
compensating
compensated!!
the property's
owner? Do
amendments apply to states?
We already know they apply
to the national government
The Ruling?
Does the Fifth Amendment
deny the states as well as the
national government the
right to take private property
for public use without justly
compensating the property's
owner? Do amendments
apply to states?
1
9/16/2016
The Ruling
• Amendments only apply to
Nat’l Gov’t, not states
• Framers of Const. & Bill of
Rights were worried about too
much nat’l power, not too
much state power
• B/c Amendments don’t apply
to states, Supreme Court has
no business dealing w/ this
case
• LET MARYLAND DEAL WITH IT
The Long-Term Effect
• People in states weren't
necessarily given rights
enumerated in Bill of
Rights.
• 90 years later 
overturned “Selective
Incorporation”
–Gitlow v. New York (1923)
Case’s significance OR
Short-Term Effect
• States  NOT held
accountable to any of
Bill of Rights or other
amendments…yet
Sources Cited…(example)
• MLA formatting
• Sources should include:
–Oyez.org
–Content for Supreme Court
cases
–Which search engine you used
for images
2