The Chief Justiceship of John Marshall, 1801-1835

Interpreting the Bill of Rights and the Nature of Federalism: Barron v. City of Baltimore

“…In the words of Justice Joseph Story, the Justices were "[p]erfectly familiar and unconstrained." 52 Working and living side by side for many years presumably contributed to the Justices' ability to achieve consensus on complex issues and to unite behind an opinion. 53 Of course, whether that unanimity was for good or ill depended on one's point of view.…”

“…Thomas Jefferson, a frequent critic of Marshall, once proclaimed that in the Court, "[a]n opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his own mind." 54 The accuracy of this scathing assessment is difficult to gauge, as the contributions of the other Justices are far less known than those of Marshall due to the infrequency with which they authored opinions. 55…”

“…Justice William Johnson declared that a person's property "becomes intimately blended with his existence, as essentially as the blood that circulates through his system." 62 Barron v. Baltimore would bring questions about both property rights and state and federal sovereignty before the Court.…”