Buchanan v. Warley

Supreme Court of the United States · 1916 · Property

245 U.S. 60 (1916)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyFourteenth Amendmentdue processproperty rightspolice powerracial zoningalienationright to sell property

Facts

Buchanan, a white seller, agreed in writing to sell a Louisville lot to Warley, a Black buyer, who stated he intended to build and occupy a residence there. The contract provided that Warley would not have to complete the purchase unless he had the legal right under Kentucky and Louisville law to occupy the property as a residence. Louisville had an ordinance making it unlawful for a Black person to move into and occupy a house on a block where a majority of houses were occupied by white persons, and the block at issue had eight white-occupied residences and two Black-occupied residences. The state courts denied specific performance solely because the ordinance would prevent Warley from lawfully occupying the lot.

Issue

May a state or municipality, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit the occupancy and therefore effectively the sale of property solely because the proposed occupant is of a particular race? More specifically, can Louisville bar a white owner from selling residential property to a Black purchaser on that basis as a valid exercise of the police power?

Rule

Although the police power is broad, it cannot sustain a law or ordinance that conflicts with the Federal Constitution. Property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the rights to acquire, use, and dispose of property, and a state may not, solely because of race, prohibit occupancy in a way that effectively prevents the purchase and sale of property without due process of law.

🔒

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 Richmond, a city ordinance makes it unlawful for a Latino person to occupy a home on any block where most homes are occupied by white residents, and makes the reverse true on majority-Latino blocks. Owen Mercer, a white homeowner, signs a contract to sell his house to Elena Cruz, who may cancel if city law would bar her from living there. A Virginia court refuses to order Elena to complete the purchase solely because the ordinance would make her occupancy illegal.

If Owen challenges the ordinance under the Fourteenth Amendment, what is the strongest argument that he may do so?

Explanation. The majority opinion allows a seller to attack such an ordinance when his own property rights are directly and necessarily impaired. Where a court refuses to enforce a sale solely because the buyer's race makes occupancy illegal, the seller's constitutional right to dispose of property is burdened. The case is not limited to the buyer's rights alone.