What was the US Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shelley v. Kraemer?

Answer 1

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948)

Answer

The US Supreme Court held that restrictive covenants entered into between private parties were valid, even if discriminatory and offensive, because the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to government entities, but that the courts could not enforce the covenants without violating the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Private contracts that violate civil rights could only be upheld voluntarily, not by legal action.

Explanation

In 1911, thirty of thirty-nine homeowners in a Missouri neighborhood signed a 50-year restrictive covenant, or contract, agreeing not to sell or rent their homes to non-whites, specifically African-Americans and Asians. The contract was to remain in effect until 1960.

The document read, in part:

". . . the said property is hereby restricted to the use and occupancy for the term of Fifty (50) years from this date, so that it shall be a condition all the time and whether recited and referred to as [sic] not in subsequent conveyances and shall attach to the land as a condition precedent to the sale of the same, that hereafter no part of said property or any

portion thereof shall be, for said term of Fifty-years, occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race, it being intended hereby to restrict the use of said property for said period of time against the occupancy as owners or tenants of any portion of said property for resident or other purpose by people of the Negro or Mongolian Race."

In August 1945, the Shelley family, African-Americans, purchased one of the homes under the restrictive agreement from the original owner, identified only as "Fitzgerald." They received the deed to the property without knowledge of the 1911 agreement.

In October 1945, Kraemer, owner of another property in the neighborhood, filed a motion in a St. Louis court requesting an injunction restraining Shelley from taking possession of the property. The State courts upheld the restrictive covenant, and Shelley appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the contract violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the property contract constitutionally valid because the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to government entities, but that the courts were prohibited from enforcing such agreements. Justice Douglas, in the opinion of the Court, cited numerous precedents demonstrating the judicial system was considered part of government and therefore bound by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the words of Justice William O. Douglas:

"It cannot be doubted that among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee. Thus, § 1978 of the Revised Statutes, derived from § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was enacted by Congress while the Fourteenth Amendment was also under consideration, provides:

"All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.""

and

"We hold that, in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws, and that, therefore, the action of the state courts cannot stand. We have noted that freedom from discrimination by the States in the enjoyment of property rights was among the basic objectives sought to be effectuated by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. That such discrimination has occurred in these cases is clear. Because of the race or color of these petitioners, they have been denied rights of ownership or occupancy enjoyed as a matter of course by other citizens of different race or color."