Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Shelley v. Kraemer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1948 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertystate actionequal protectionracially restrictive covenantsstate actionequal protectionFourteenth Amendment

Facts

In Missouri, property owners had recorded an agreement providing that property in a designated district could not be occupied by persons not of the Caucasian race, and respondents sued after the Shelleys, who were Negroes, purchased property covered by the covenant. The Missouri Supreme Court ordered enforcement of the covenant, including divestment of title. In Michigan, a similar recorded agreement provided that the property should not be used or occupied except by persons of the Caucasian race, and after Black petitioners acquired and occupied the property, respondents obtained a decree requiring them to move and forbidding future occupancy. In both cases, willing sellers had conveyed property to willing Black purchasers, and the exclusion was accomplished through state-court enforcement.

Issue

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit state courts from judicially enforcing private racially restrictive covenants that exclude persons from owning or occupying property on the basis of race or color? More specifically, does such judicial enforcement constitute state action?

Rule

The Fourteenth Amendment reaches only state action, not merely private conduct. Private racially restrictive covenants, standing alone and voluntarily observed, do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment; but when state courts grant judicial enforcement of such covenants, that enforcement is state action, and if it denies persons property rights on account of race or color, it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

🔒

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 Cleveland, a recorded neighborhood agreement states that homes on a certain block may not be sold or leased to persons of a specified race. Elena Ruiz, a willing seller, conveys her house to Devon Price, who is financially able and ready to move in. Nearby owners sue in Ohio state court and obtain an injunction barring Devon from occupying the property solely because of his race.

If Devon challenges the injunction under the Fourteenth Amendment, what is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority held that private racial covenants, standing alone, are private conduct, but state-court enforcement of them is state action in the full constitutional sense. When a court uses the State's coercive power to deny ownership or occupancy rights on account of race or color, the Equal Protection Clause is violated. Devon's lack of knowledge is not the key point; the constitutional defect is the court's enforcement.