32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
Barron v. Baltimore is a foundational case in American constitutional law that set the initial baseline for the relationship between the federal Bill of Rights and state governments.
Does the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause apply to state and local governments so as to require them to provide just compensation when they take private property for public use?
At the time of Barron (1833), the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights restricted only the powers of the national government and did not apply to the states or their political subdivisions. Absent express textual application to the states, federal rights in the first ten amendments did not constrain state action.
No. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not apply to state and local governments. Because the Bill of Rights limited only the federal government, the Supreme Court lacked a federal question and thus jurisdiction to review the state court's judgment on Fifth Amendment grounds.
Barron established the pre–Fourteenth Amendment baseline that the federal Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. This decision shaped 19th-century constitutional law by channeling rights-protection claims against state governments to state constitutions and courts. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment transformed this landscape, enabling the Supreme Court—beginning in cases like Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. v. Chicago (1897) and Gitlow v. New York (1925)—to apply most Bill of Rights protections to the states through the Due Process Clause. Barron remains pivotal because it explains the original federalism framework and provides context for the later selective incorporation doctrine. For students, it is essential to understanding the historical evolution of individual rights, the limits of federal judicial power in the early republic, and the interpretive methods used by the Marshall Court.