Case Brief 5 - Barron v. Baltimore PDF

Preview

Summary

It's a reading notes for the cases that we had to turn in every class...

Description

POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. (7PET) 243 (1833) Facts: Legally Relevant Facts : As Baltimore grew economically and went through major economic changes, it went through constant construction and excavations that often resulted in altering the flow of streams coming into Baltimore Harbor. Especially for John Barron and John Craig, who were the owners of a particularly profitable wharf experienced sand and silt deposits rendering the water in front of their wharf so shallow, which caused their business to lose almost all of its value. Procedurally Relevant Facts : Barron and Craig brought this case to the country court in Maryland and asked $20,000 in damages to be paid by the city representatives. “The court ordered the city to pay them $4,500,” but a state appellate court reversed the decision, which lead Barron to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue(s): The question that is mainly concerned by the justices was that “[s]pecifically, under what authority did the United States Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review this local matter that had already been decided by the state courts?”

Holding: The fifth amendment is not applicable in this case and U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of the cause, and the lower courts’ decision is affirmed.

Reasoning: When the amendments were created, it was to limit the power of the Federal Court, not those of states. In the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, the limitations on the powers of the general government were imposed. Therefore, the state government holds right to decide their own constitution considering their situation and interest. Even for the fifth amendment that was brought to be violated by the Maryland state, it should not be applicable to the Maryland government as it only restrains the power of the general government. If any discontents were brought up within the state, the improvements should be made within the state.

Concurring Opinion: Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall “The Bill of Rights was intended only to protect the people against abusive actions of the federal government, not the states. Guarantees against state violations of individual liberties would have to be found in the laws and constitutions of the respective individual states.”...