Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Reitman v. Mulkey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionState ActionHousing DiscriminationFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection Clausestate actionhousing discrimination

Facts

California voters adopted Proposition 14, adding Article I, Section 26 to the state constitution, which provided that neither the State nor its subdivisions could deny or abridge a person's right to decline to sell, lease, or rent residential real property to anyone the owner chose. In Mulkey v. Reitman, the Mulkeys sued under California Civil Code sections 51 and 52, alleging petitioners refused to rent them an apartment solely because of race; petitioners argued Proposition 14 had nullified those statutes as applied. In Prendergast v. Snyder, tenants alleged a racially motivated eviction violated the same statutes, while the landlord sought a declaration that he could terminate the tenancy even on racial grounds. The California Supreme Court concluded that Section 26 invalidly involved the State in racial discrimination in housing and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue

Whether Article I, Section 26 of the California Constitution, adopted as Proposition 14, denied equal protection of the laws by authorizing private racial discrimination in residential housing and thereby significantly involving the State in such discrimination. More specifically, the question was whether the provision did more than merely repeal prior antidiscrimination statutes and instead encouraged and constitutionalized private discrimination.

Rule

A State is not required by the Federal Constitution to prohibit private racial discrimination, and mere repeal of an antidiscrimination statute is not automatically unconstitutional. But when a state provision is intended to authorize private racial discrimination, creates a constitutional right to discriminate, and in context has the effect of encouraging and significantly involving the State in private discrimination, it constitutes unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether the State has become significantly involved is determined by assessing the provision's immediate objective, ultimate effect, historical context, and practical impact.

🔒

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.

Voters in Oregon adopt a state constitutional amendment providing that no state or local body may interfere with an owner's "absolute discretion" to refuse to sell or lease residential property to any person for any reason. Before the amendment, Oregon had statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in apartment rentals and home sales.

A Black applicant denied an apartment in Portland sues, arguing the amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the governing doctrine, what is the strongest argument for invalidating the amendment?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a State is not required to prohibit purely private racial discrimination, and mere repeal of antidiscrimination laws is not automatically unconstitutional. But a provision that authorizes and constitutionalizes discrimination in housing, insulating it from ordinary state regulation, may significantly encourage and involve the State in private discrimination. That is the strongest basis for invalidation here.