Barron v. Baltimore
| Barron v. Baltimore | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated February 11, 1833 |
||||
| Decided February 16, 1833 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| The plaintiff owned a shipyard. He made a claim for damages because urban road works changed the course of various rivers in such a way that sandbanks formed near the shipyard, making the water too shallow for most ships. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The government of a member state is not bound by the requirement of the 5th constitutional amendment to pay appropriate compensation in the event of expropriations. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| Bill of Rights , 5th Amendment | ||||
| Repealed by | ||||
| de facto but not de jure 14. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Barron v. Baltimore set the precedent for the question of whether the US Bill of Rights also applies in the relationship between a citizen and a state of the United States .
Facts of the case
John Barron owned a shipyard in Baltimore . He asserted a claim for damages against the city administration, claiming that urban road construction work had changed the course of various rivers in such a way that sandbanks had formed near the shipyard, making the water too shallow for most ships.
The court of first instance awarded Barron a compensation claim of $ 4,500. However, this judgment was overturned by the appeals court.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights , specifically the provision in the 5th Amendment that requires appropriate compensation for federal expropriations , does not apply at the state level.
The judgment written by John Marshall states:
“The Bill of Rights does not contain any indication that it should also apply to the governments of the individual member states. The court can therefore not apply it in this way. "
The case was of particular importance as it stipulated that the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights were not binding on state authority at the level of the individual states. Later decisions confirmed this decision and it remained binding for almost 100 years.
De facto abolition in the 20th century
Only in the first decades of the 20th century, in decisions like Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court began to apply the rule of law to most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights also in relation to the member states.
But then he no longer refers to the 5th Amendment, but to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which basically contains the same rule of law. The older case law has not been repealed, but bypassed.
See also
literature
- Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation , New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
- Edward C. Papenfuse, Outline, Notes and Documents Concerning Barron v Baltimore, 32 US 243, http://mdhistory.net/msaref06/barron/index.html
Individual evidence
- ↑ Gitlow v. New York , 268 US 652 (1925)
- ↑ United States v. Cruikshank