Shelley v. Kraemer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shelley v. Kraemer
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 15, 1948 Decided May 3, 1948
Full case name: Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux. McGhee et ux. v. Sipes et al. Citations: 334 U.S. 1; 68 S. Ct. 836; 92 L. Ed. 1161; 3 A.L.R.2d 441 Prior history: Judgment for defendants; reversed, 198 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. 1947); certiorari granted. Judgement for plaintiffs; affirmed 25 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 614); certiorari granted.
Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a state from enforcing restrictive covenants which would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property on the basis of race or color.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Harold Hitz Burton
Case opinions
Majority by: Vinson Joined by: Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Burton Reed, Jackson, Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the enforceability of restrictive covenants which would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property on the basis of race. It is an important civil rights case.

Contents 1 Facts of the case 2 Legal questions 3 Decision of the court 4 External links

[edit] Facts of the case

In 1945, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were not aware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from owning the property. Neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property they had purchased. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the purchasers because the covenant was a purely private agreement between the original parties thereto, which "ran with the land" and was enforceable against subsequent owners. A materially similar scenario took place in Michigan where the McGhee's purchased land subject to a similar restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases for oral arguements.

[edit] Legal questions

The Court considered two questions. First, are racially-based restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Second, can they be enforced by a court of law?

[edit] Decision of the court

The United States Supreme Court, held that racially-based restrictive covenants are, on their face, not invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. Parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek enforcement of such a covenant, as doing so would amount to state action. Since such state action would necessarily be discriminatory, the enforcement of a racially-based restrictive covenant by a state is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[edit] External links

• Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com