Today in Supreme Court History: February 16, 1833

2/16/1833: Barron v. City of Baltimore decided.

Comments

[apedad]

RE: Barron v. City of Baltimore

Facts of the case

Baltimore wharf owner John Barron alleged that construction by the city had diverted water flow in the harbor area. He argued that sand accumulations in the harbor deprived Barron of deep waters, which reduced his profits. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses. The trial court awarded him $4,500 in damages, which the state appellate court struck down.

Question

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?

Conclusion (7 - 0, Unanimous)

Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) as an exclusive check on the federal government, Marshall reasoned that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. This meant that Barron was not entitled to damages for his property loss from the city under the Fifth Amendment provision on just compensation for a government taking. (oyez)

"However, since the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was interpreted to have the same meaning as the Fifth Amendment, to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states by selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled." (wiki)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (decided February 16, 1833): Bill of Rights (here, the Fifth Amendment takings clause) applies only to federal action, not state (Barron could not get compensation for City's modification of stream which silted up his wharf) (I suppose the Maryland constititution had no takings clause); abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment

Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147 (decided February 16, 1948): In Sipuel v. Board of Regents, January 12, 1948, which I recently summarized here, the Court had ruled that the University of Oklahoma could not refuse an applicant on account of race, and had remanded the case back to the District Court for implementation. But the District Court ordered that either Ms. Sipuel be admitted, or that UO set up a separate school of law for black students! Here the Court affirms that ridiculous ruling. (The separate law school, "Langston University School of Law", with her as the only student, didn't last long. She refused to attend, threatened to sue again, and UO gave in and let her into their existing law school.)

Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (decided February 16, 1948): product for injecting nitrogen-fixing bacteria into legumes not patentable; effective agent was the bacteria which is found in nature

The Caledonian, 17 U.S. 100 (decided February 16, 1819): "prize of war" can be captured after it arrives at port (this was an American vessel, with a cargo of rice, captured by the British during the War of 1812)

Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138 (decided February 16, 1948): landlord in "Cleveland Defense Rental Area" fails in his attempt to raise rents 40% - 60%; violated Housing and Rent Act of 1947, which was proper extension of War Powers Act because it dealt with dislocations immediately caused by war

[David Nieporent]

But the District Court ordered that either Ms. Sipuel be admitted, or that UO set up a separate school of law for black students! Here the Court affirms that ridiculous ruling.

Plessy was the governing standard, and it of course allowed segregation but not outright discrimination. (“Separate but equal.”) The NAACP, under Thurgood Marshall¹ and others, pursued the long game. (Brown was the culmination of a decades-long strategy, not something that came out of the blue.) They started with higher education, based on the idea that it was easier to show discrimination, easier to show that separate was not equal, and also it was less politically sensitive since it didn’t force white parents to confront their fear of black boys mixing with their white daughters.

Sweatt v. Painter, which came a couple of years after the case you mention, was probably the most famous of these rulings, since it expressly ruled that separate was not equal.
​
​
¹People who only know Marshall from his time on the Supreme Court, where (IMO) he was rather unimpressive (even if you agreed with his positions) should read up on his career before he took the bench. He was a brilliant litigator and strategist.

[Syd Henderson]

There was a movie, Marshall, showing him in the case State of "Connecticut v. Joseph Spell" along with Samuel Friedman, who I believe was the actual lead lawyer, though Marshall was the NAACP's representative. I think his best work was as a lawyer in these civil rights cases.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re both right about Marshall. Also he knew he was taking his life in his hands. This was one reason Miss Sipuel stayed with the Marshalls during the litigation, so that she could be guarded along with them. Thanks for the extra information.

Langston University itself is a HBCU and I imagine they were not thrilled about their name being co-opted. UO finally gave in because Marshall threatened to relitigate on the “separate is not equal” argument.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In hindsight, the Supreme Court undermined the foundation of the Plessy case in 1938, when it started giving a close look at whether separate was actually equal. It’s not, and the pretense withers under examination. It still took years of litigation to point out the obvious reality in a way the Court had to acknowledge. Then they piddled around with doll studies but they ended up with the right result in Brown, following it up by abolishing separate-but-equal in non-educational contexts too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You are correct about the doll experiment being invalid, and also about the Court getting to the right result anyway.

The argument for separate but equal was more emotional than rational. It was not necessarily motivated by bigotry or hatred. It was more of a “they have their world and we have ours” mindset. I saw this myself among older white folks when I lived in the South, many years ago.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe not hatred, but definitely bigotry.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Your comment caused me to look up the word, which has been so overused.

It means “prejudice”, according to Webster, and if that’s correct, then I still wouldn’t say it was bigotry. It was not necessarily thinking that black people were stupider, childlike, etc. They did not hesitate to give respect to black ministers, doctors, and did not think that such people were exceptional. It was something nobody talked about and was not to be too closely examined. Maybe like driving on the right when you see a car coming on an unpaved road. Everyone knew the unspoken rules. It was (like I say) “their world” and not “our world”.