Shelley v. Kraemer

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Shelley v. Kraemer
ArgueDate=January 15
ArgueYear=1948
DecideDate=May 3
DecideYear=1948
FullName=Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux. McGhee et ux. v. Sipes et al.
USVol=334
USPage=1
Citation=68 S. Ct. 836; 92 L. Ed. 1161; 3 A.L.R.2d 441
Prior=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.
Subsequent=
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.
SCOTUS=1946-1949
Majority=Vinson
JoinMajority=Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Burton
NotParticipating=Reed, Jackson, Rutledge
LawsApplied=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.

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 unaware 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 the companion case McGhee v. Sipes from Detroit, Michigan, where the McGhee's purchased land subject to a similar restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases for oral arguments.

Legal questions

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

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. Private parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, because enforcement by the courts would constitute state action. Since such state action would necessarily be discriminatory, the enforcement of a racially-based restrictive covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The attorneys who argued the case for the McGhee's were Thurgood Marshall and Loren Miller.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334
*Shelley House (St. Louis, Missouri), National Historic Landmark

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Darden |first=Joe T. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1995 |month= |title=Black Residential Segregation Since the 1948 "Shelley v. Kraemer" Decision |journal=Journal of Black Studies |volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=680–691 |doi=10.2307/2784759 |url= |accessdate= |quote= |doi_brokendate=2008-10-03
*cite journal |last=Henkin |first=Louis |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1962 |month= |title="Shelley v. Kraemer": Notes for a Revised Opinion |journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review |volume=110 |issue=4 |pages=473–505 |doi=10.2307/3310675 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Higginbotham |first=A. Leon |authorlink=A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. |coauthors= |year=1989 |month= |title=Race, sex, education and Missouri jurisprudence: "Shelley v. Kraemer" in a historical perspective |journal=Washington University Law Quarterly |volume=67 |issue= |pages=673–708 |issn=00430862 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

* [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/334/1.html Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com]