In Barron vs. Baltimore, what was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the 5th Amendment?

In Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment, which includes the concept of just compensation for the taking of private property, was applicable only to the federal government and not to the states. This decision established the principle of dual citizenship, where individuals have both a federal citizenship and a state citizenship.

As a result, the Court held that the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment, were not intended to limit the powers of the states. This ruling effectively meant that state governments were not required to follow the same constraints regarding property rights as the federal government. Consequently, any legal protections in the realm of the Fifth Amendment did not extend to state actions, leaving states free to regulate property as they saw fit without the overarching requirement for just compensation.

This case set a precedent that highlighted the distinction between federal and state powers, illustrating the limited scope of the Bill of Rights concerning state laws until later developments, such as the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine through subsequent rulings.