Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Memphis v. Greene

Supreme Court of the United States · 1981 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCivil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1982Thirteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1982Thirteenth Amendmentbadge of slaveryproperty rights

Facts

Memphis approved a request by residents of Hein Park, an all-white residential neighborhood at the time, to close the north end of West Drive at Jackson Avenue in order to reduce through traffic, improve safety for children, and lessen noise, litter, and disruption. Residents north of Jackson Avenue, in a predominantly black area, used West Drive for some southbound trips, and the closing would primarily inconvenience black motorists by requiring them to turn sooner or take a slightly longer route to Overton Park. The District Court found no discriminatory intent, no significant procedural irregularity, no reason to think comparable benefits would be denied to black property owners, and no decrease in black property values. The physical barrier was a curb that did not block municipal vehicles, and other streets continued to provide access to Hein Park.

Issue

Did Memphis's closure of the north end of West Drive violate 42 U.S.C. § 1982 by impairing black residents' property rights, or violate the Thirteenth Amendment as a badge or incident of slavery, where the record showed no discriminatory motive and only slight inconvenience to primarily black motorists?

Rule

Section 1982 reaches unequal treatment in property rights, impairment of black-owned property values, or severe restrictions on access to black homes, but it does not cover a mere requirement that one public street rather than another be used when no protected property interest is impaired. A routine traffic regulation motivated by legitimate safety and residential-tranquility concerns, and causing only slight disparate inconvenience without discriminatory motive, is not a badge or incident of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment.

🔒

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 Dayton, Ohio, installs a median at the end of Birch Lane to stop cut-through traffic into a quiet residential block. Drivers from a predominantly Black neighborhood north of the lane must now turn one block earlier and use a parallel avenue, but their trips are not materially longer and homes remain fully accessible from other streets.

Residents from the northern neighborhood sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. Which is the strongest argument for the city?

Explanation. The majority held that § 1982 protects property interests—such as equal enjoyment, value, acquisition, and use of property—not mere travel inconvenience. Where the government action only causes slight rerouting and does not depreciate Black-owned property, deny equal property benefits, or severely restrict access to homes, § 1982 is not violated.