Barron v. Baltimore: A Bill of Rights for Washington Only

In the early nineteenth century, it was unclear whether the Bill of Rights restrained state governments. John Barron owned a profitable wharf in Baltimore harbour, but the city's street-building projects diverted streams that deposited sand and silt, making the water too shallow for most ships.

Barron sued, arguing the city had taken his property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for a unanimous Court that the Bill of Rights limited only the federal government, not the states. The decision reflected the amendments' history: Madison's proposal to bind the states had been rejected in 1789.

Its consequences were large. States remained free, under the federal Constitution, to restrict speech, support churches or deny jury trials; Massachusetts, for example, did not end its official church support until 1833. Abolitionist speech was suppressed in some Southern states. Overturning Barron's practical effect would require the Fourteenth Amendment.