Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hunter v. Erickson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionRace DiscriminationPolitical ProcessHousing DiscriminationEqual Protection Clauseracial classificationpolitical process

Facts

Akron enacted a fair housing ordinance creating a local commission to enforce prohibitions on discrimination in housing. Nellie Hunter filed a complaint alleging that a real estate agent refused to show her listed houses because the owners did not want their houses shown to Negroes. Before her complaint could be processed, Akron voters adopted Charter § 137, which suspended any existing ordinance regulating real property transactions on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry until approved by a majority of voters, and required the same voter approval for any future such ordinance. Other ordinances affecting real property generally became effective after city council passage unless voters invoked the normal referendum process.

Issue

Whether Akron denied equal protection by amending its charter to require majority voter approval before any ordinance addressing racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing could become effective, while leaving other real-property legislation subject to the ordinary legislative process.

Rule

When a state or local government creates an explicitly racial classification within the political process by making it substantially more difficult to enact legislation protecting against racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination than other comparable legislation, that classification is constitutionally suspect, subject to the most rigid scrutiny, and violates the Equal Protection Clause absent a sufficient justification. A government may not disadvantage a particular group by restructuring the legislative process to make enactment of laws in that group's behalf more difficult.

🔒

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.

The city council in Toledo passes an ordinance banning landlords from refusing to rent on the basis of race, religion, or ancestry. Two weeks later, voters adopt a charter amendment requiring any ordinance addressing housing discrimination on those grounds to win approval at the next general election, while other housing ordinances take effect after council passage unless opponents invoke the ordinary referendum process.

If a rejected tenant challenges the charter amendment, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a city may not restructure the political process to make enactment of laws protecting against racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination substantially more difficult than enactment of comparable legislation. Here, the charter amendment imposes a special electoral hurdle only on antidiscrimination housing ordinances, while other housing measures remain subject to the ordinary process. That explicit classification in the governmental process is constitutionally suspect and violates equal protection absent sufficient justification. Facial symmetry among groups does not save it, because the practical burden falls on minorities seeking protection.