Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Barrows v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1953 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyEqual ProtectionState ActionStandingRestrictive Covenantsracial restrictive covenantsdamages remedy

Facts

Petitioners and respondent were owners of residential real estate in the same Los Angeles neighborhood and were subject to an agreement providing that the property should not be used or occupied by persons not wholly of the white or Caucasian race, except certain domestic servants or employees. Petitioners alleged respondent breached the covenant by conveying her property without including the restriction in the deed and by permitting non-Caucasians to move in and occupy the premises. Petitioners sought damages at law rather than equitable enforcement. The California courts dismissed the complaint on the ground that, after Shelley v. Kraemer, such a covenant could not be enforced through a damages action.

Issue

May a state court enforce a racial restrictive covenant by awarding damages against a covenantor who breaches it, even though such covenants may not be enforced in equity under Shelley v. Kraemer? Also, may the defendant in that damages action invoke the equal protection rights of the non-Caucasian persons who would be excluded by such enforcement?

Rule

Although a racial restrictive covenant is not itself invalid merely because it exists and may be voluntarily observed, state judicial enforcement of such a covenant through an award of damages is state action. When such enforcement would coerce continued discrimination and thereby deny non-Caucasians the ability to purchase, own, and enjoy property on the same terms as Caucasians, it violates the Equal Protection Clause; in the unique circumstances of such a case, the defendant may assert those third parties' rights.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In St. Louis, homeowners on Maple Crest Drive signed an agreement providing that their houses could be occupied only by white residents. After Lena Ortiz sold her home to a Korean American family, several neighbors sued her in Missouri state court for $40,000 in damages for breaching the agreement, rather than seeking an injunction.

How should the constitutional issue be resolved under the Supreme Court's majority reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that a state court's award of damages for breach of a racial restrictive covenant is state action just as surely as equitable enforcement. Damages would punish the owner for failing to continue discriminatory use of the property and would place the State's sanction behind the covenant. Because that coercion would help deny non-Caucasians equal access to property on the same terms as Caucasians, the award is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.