Barkley v. Levee Commissioners et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the state of Mississippi had the right to take private property for public use without providing just compensation. The case was brought by the plaintiff, William Barkley, who owned a large tract of land in Mississippi. The state had passed a law authorizing the construction of levees along the Mississippi River, and the Levee Commissioners had taken possession of a portion of Barkley's land for the purpose of constructing the levees. Barkley argued that the taking of his land was unconstitutional, as it violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court agreed with Barkley, ruling that the taking of his land was unconstitutional and that he was entitled to just compensation for the taking. The Court held that the state of Mississippi had violated the Fifth Amendment by taking Barkley's land without providing just compensation. The Court also held that the state was liable for the damages caused by the taking of the land.

In the case of Barkley v. Levee Commissioners et al., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority had misconstrued the law and failed to consider certain facts in their decision. He argued that, under Louisiana state law, levees were not considered public works and thus could be built without any prior authorization from Congress or other federal authorities. Furthermore, he noted that while it was true that some of these levees had been constructed on navigable waters, they did not interfere with navigation as they only extended along one side of a riverbank rather than across its entire width. Finally, he asserted that even if there was an issue with regard to federal authority over such projects in this particular instance, it should have been addressed by Congress rather than through judicial action since it involved matters outside the scope of judicial power.