answersLogoWhite

0

Many cases fall within the scope of this question. Buchanan v. Warley, (1917), was the first instance in which the Supreme Court declared a specific policy of residential segregation unconstitutional; however, Jones v. Mayer, (1968), may come closest to a formal court declaration outlawing racial segregation in housing altogether (although the decision was based on federal, not constitutional, law). Shelley v. Kraemer, (1948) is considered a landmark case because it prohibited courts from awarding monetary damages against people violating restrictive covenants by selling their homes to non-whites, removing a powerful legal weapon from those who hoped to continue segregation practices. The Court did not simultaneously rule private covenants, themselves, unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there is no US Supreme Court housing case comparable in magnitude to the impact of Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) on civil rights.

Most forms of racial discrimination were outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and subsequent legislation, leaving the federal courts to interpret the laws and determine who has standing to seek adjudicative relief, rather than pass judgment on segregated housing as a whole. This form of discrimination has been so pervasive and insidious, every time the Supreme Court rules one action unconstitutional or in violation of federal law, someone devises a way around the ruling.

Housing discrimination is still being tried in the courts, but most cases are handled by the lower courts without additional input from the US Supreme Court because supporting legislation has largely matured (not because the Supreme Court fails to recognize the egregiousness of discrimination).

The following cases are some of the better known, to date:

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 US 60 (1917) 
The Court unanimously struck down a Louisville, KY, municipal ordinance that required residential segregation by race. The law prohibited blacks or whites from living on blocks where members of one race occupied the majority of homes. The Court struck down the statute because it destroyed the right of the individual to acquire, enjoy and dispose of his property, which right is protected by the 14th Amendment. (While this set a valuable legal precedent, developers and homeowner associations circumvented the law by setting up association-based restrictive covenants.) 


Harmon v. Tyler, 273 US 688 (1927) 
Based on the precedent set in Buchanan v. Warley (above) the Supreme Court held that cities could not segregate housing by denying building permits to African-Americans who wanted to construct a home in a "white" neighborhood.

Hansberry v. Lee, 311 US 32 (1940)

Rejected a restrictive covenant prohibiting African-Americans from living in the exclusive "white" suburb of Hyde Park, Chicago, on the basis of a technicality, but did not render all restrictive covenants illegal.

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948)

Held that courts could not enforce in equity (allow monetary damages) restrictive covenants banning African-Americans and Asians (or other legally defined minorities) from purchasing a home or living in any neighborhood. Held that private restrictive covenants were not necessarily a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that they could not be legally enforced. In other words, the Court declined to impose constitutional restrictions on private individuals. This is still considered a landmark case.

Barrows v. Jackson, 346 US 249 (1953)

Pursuant to Shelley v. Kraemer, (1948), upheld a state court decision forbidding use of race-based restrictive covenants from being used to recover monetary damages from a party in breach of the covenant. Also ruled that an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice without being personally damaged, because the rule to deny standing is outweighed by the need to protect the fundamental rights of an entire class.

Jones v. Mayer, 392 US 409 (1968)

Decision based on Title 42 of federal law (42 USC § 1982) that stated: "all citizens 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." Reversed lower court rulings that housing discrimination laws applied only to government entities, and did not reach private parties, and held that refusing to sell or rent property to otherwise qualified African-Americans (or any non-whites) was unconstitutional. Applied the Thirteenth Amendment right of Congress to pass civil rights laws that are enforceable against private individuals.

Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,409 US 205 (1972)

Held that tenants of an apartment community that practiced racial discrimination against non-whites had standing to bring suit against the landlord, despite their unusual status of not being denied housing. The tenants "claimed they had been injured in that (1) they had lost the social benefits of living in an integrated community; (2) they had missed business and professional advantages which would have accrued if they had lived with members of minority groups; (3) they had suffered embarrassment and economic damage in social, business, and professional activities from being "stigmatized" as residents of a "white ghetto." Determined that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 USC § 3610 (a)) must be broadly interpreted to allow standing to bring suit in federal court for any person aggrieved by discriminatory housing practices, not just those denied housing.

Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 US 91 (1979)

Pursuant to Trafficante, held that residents of an integrated neighborhood and the town itself had standing to file for injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief against real estate companies and their agents who were engaged in the practice of "steering" (creating de facto segregation by selecting which houses to show a client based on his or her race) white clients away from and African-American clients toward a twelve- to thirteen-block square integrated neighborhood, in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about General History

What are racial covenants?

Racial covenants are legal clauses included in property deeds that restrict the sale or rental of property based on race, ethnicity, or religion. They were commonly used in the United States during the early to mid-20th century to maintain racially segregated neighborhoods. Although these covenants were declared unenforceable by the Supreme Court in 1948 and later rendered illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, their legacy has contributed to ongoing issues of racial segregation and inequality in housing.


When it comes to housing which racial group is most segregated?

whites.


How did restrictive covenants and redlining contribute to racially segregated neighborhoods?

Restrictive covenants were legal agreements that prohibited property owners from selling to individuals of certain races or ethnicities, effectively maintaining racial homogeneity in neighborhoods. Redlining involved the discriminatory practice of denying loans or insurance to residents in predominantly minority neighborhoods, limiting their ability to buy homes in more desirable areas. Together, these practices systematically excluded racial minorities from accessing housing opportunities, leading to the enduring segregation of communities and the concentration of poverty in certain areas. As a result, racially segregated neighborhoods became entrenched, with significant long-term impacts on economic and social mobility.


What date was the discrimination in jobs and housing outlawed?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by employers. Meanwhile, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Act Amendments Act of 1988 made discrimination in housing illegal.


What was the significance of Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. US?

It outlawed racial discrimination for many businesses in 1964. In the case of Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause meant that the federal government and Congress could force businesses to follow the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in this particular case because it affected housing for those traveling from state to state. This effectively denied a business the ability to discriminate against any potential customers on the basis of their race.

Related Questions

What are racial covenants?

Racial covenants are legal clauses included in property deeds that restrict the sale or rental of property based on race, ethnicity, or religion. They were commonly used in the United States during the early to mid-20th century to maintain racially segregated neighborhoods. Although these covenants were declared unenforceable by the Supreme Court in 1948 and later rendered illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, their legacy has contributed to ongoing issues of racial segregation and inequality in housing.


When it comes to housing which racial group is most segregated?

whites.


What kind of social limitations did black people had in the 1865 to 1900?

Socially they were segregated and discriminated against. Jim Crow laws were very strong and enforced, housing was segregated, so were schools, colleges didn't accept African Americans, the military was segregated, movies and restaurants were segregated, social events were segregated, even funerals and cemeteries were segregated.


What is ten things of civil rights act outlawed discrimination in rental of housing?

cow


How did restrictive covenants and redlining contribute to racially segregated neighborhoods?

Restrictive covenants were legal agreements that prohibited property owners from selling to individuals of certain races or ethnicities, effectively maintaining racial homogeneity in neighborhoods. Redlining involved the discriminatory practice of denying loans or insurance to residents in predominantly minority neighborhoods, limiting their ability to buy homes in more desirable areas. Together, these practices systematically excluded racial minorities from accessing housing opportunities, leading to the enduring segregation of communities and the concentration of poverty in certain areas. As a result, racially segregated neighborhoods became entrenched, with significant long-term impacts on economic and social mobility.


What date was the discrimination in jobs and housing outlawed?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by employers. Meanwhile, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Fair Housing Act Amendments Act of 1988 made discrimination in housing illegal.


What was major changes in Northern and Western cities during the postwar years was?

the developement of segregated neighnorhoods without adequate housing and services


One of the major changes in Northern and Western cities during the postwar years was:?

the development of segregated neighborhoods without adequate housing and services.


Is it legal to put age restrictions on living places?

The courts have ruled that providing certain requirements are adhered to, yes, age segregated housing IS legal.


What was one of the major changes in northern and western cities during the post war years was?

the development of segregated neighborhoods without adequate housing and services.


One of the major changes in Northern and Western cities during the postwar years was?

the development of segregated neighborhoods without adequate housing and services. a decrease in middle-class families


When did segregation end for blacks in America?

Executive Order 9981 officially ended segregagtion in the US military . There were some intergration during the Second World War out of necessity but generally there were segregated units throughout WW2.orin 1948