Barron v. Baltimore (Bill of Rights State)

Applying this rule, Barron's challenge failed at the threshold: although the city's diversion of streams destroyed the commercial value of his wharf—an injury that would constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment if inflicted by the federal government—the Fifth Amendment provides no protection against state action. Because Baltimore is a state entity, not a federal actor, the Takings Clause simply does not apply to its conduct, regardless of how substantially the city's public works project damaged Barron's property rights. The Court held that Barron's remedy, if any, lay exclusively in state law and the Maryland Constitution, not in the federal Bill of Rights. This federalism principle meant that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of just compensation was entirely unavailable to Barron despite suffering what objectively appeared to be a taking.