Document: 334 U.S. 1 68 S.Ct. 836 92 L.Ed. 1161 SHELLEY et ux.v.KRAEMER ux. McGHEE v. SIPES al. Nos. 72, 87. Argued Jan. 15, 16, 1948. Decided May 3, Messrs. George L. Vaughn and Herman Willer, both of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners Shelley. Thurgood Marshall, New York City, Loren Miller, McGhee. Mr. Gerald Seegers, respondents Kraemer. Henry Gilligan James A. Crooks, Washington, D.C. Sipes others. Philip B. Perlman, Sol. Gen., D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Cheif Justice VINSON delivered opinion These cases present our consideration questions relating to validity court enforcement private agreements, generally described restrictive covenants, which have their purpose exclusion persons designated race or color from Basic constitutional issues obvious importance been raised. 2 The first these comes this Court on certiorari Supreme Missouri. On February 1911, thirty out a total thirty-nine owners property fronting sides Labadie Avenue between Taylor Cora in city signed an agreement, was subsequently recorded, providing part: 3 '* * said is hereby restricted use occupancy term Fifty (50) years date, so that it shall be condition all time whether recited referred (sic) not subsequent conveyances attach land, precedent sale same, hereafter no part any portion thereof be, Fifty-years, occupied person Caucasian race, being intended restrict period against tenants resident other people Negro Mongolian Race.' 4 entire district agreement included fifty-seven parcels lamd. who held title forty-seven parcels, including particular parcel involved case. At signed, five were owned Negroes. One those had families since 1882, nearly before executed. trial found seven nine homes south side Avenue, within restrit ed 'in immediate vicinity' premises question, failed sign 1911. action brought, four Negroes, periods ranging twenty-three sixty-three years. A fifth Negroes until year suit instituted. 5 August 11, 1945, pursuant contract sale, Shelley, are valuable received one Fitzgerald warranty deed question.1 actual knowledge at purchase. 6 October 9, respondents, subject terms covenant, brought Circuit Louis prarying Shelley restrained taking possession judgment entered divesting revesting grantor such should direct. denied requested relief ground upon based action, never become final complete because intention parties effective district, signatures obtained. 7 Missouri sitting en banc reversed directed grant prayed. That concluded its provisions violated rights guaranteed Federal Constitution.2 rendered decision, occupying question. 8 second under Michigan. circumstances presented do differ materially In June, 1934, Ferguson his wife, then located Detroit case, executed 9 'This used except race. 10 'It further agreed restriction unless least eighty percent street block where land subjected similar restriction.' 11 provided restrictions remain effect January 1, 1960. recorded; agreements with respect lots question situated. 12 By dated November 30, 1944, petitioners, acquired thereupon into occupancy. Wayne County. After hearing, decree directing move ninety days. Petitioners enjoined using future. appeal, Michigan affirmed, deciding adversely petitioners' contentions they protected Fourteenth Amendment.3 13 placed primary reliance contentions, raised state courts, judicial has Amendment Constitution Acts Congress passed Amendment.4 Specifically, urge equal protection laws, deprived without due process law, privileges immunities citizens States. We pass issues. I. 14 Whether clause inhibits courts covenants heretofore called consider. Only two decided way agreements. case Corrigan Buckley, 1926, 271 323, 46 521, 70 969. There, District Columbia enjoin threatened violation certain lands situated Washington. Relief granted, here appeal. It apparent originated federal Columbia, could Amendment; applies only Nor Fifth properly Court, specifically recognizes.5 issue appellants lower hence covenant such. This inhibitions invoked, apply governmental contrasted individuals, there showing simply owners, invalid. Accordingly, appeal dismissed want substantial Nothing therefore, may regarded adjudication merits cases, raise validity, such, but 15 involving racial Hansberry Lee, 1940, 311 32, 61 115, 85 22, 132 A.L.R. 741. white violating agreement. bound earlier determination, litigation parties, upholding although, fact, number necessary make law. f law estopped challenge theory, accepted court, litigation, did participate, nature class suit. arriving result, reach now consideration. 16 well, outset, scrutinize agreemens cases. declares affected (355 Mo. 814, 198 S.W.2d 681) 'occupied Not does restricton seek proscribe properties members excluded class, construed requires uses divested. seeks bar class. provides (316 Mich. 614, 25 N.W.2d 642) race.' 17 observed properties. Use residential occupancy, forbidden. rather, toward determine own purposes. defined wholly color.; 'simply nothing more.'6 18 cannot doubted among civil discriminatory acquire, enjoy, dispose property. Equality enjoyment framers essential pre-condition realization basic liberties guarantee.7 Thus, s 1978 Revised Statutes, derived § Civil Rights Act 1866 enacted while also consideration,8 provides: 19 'All States same right, every State Territory, enjoyed inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, convey real personal property.'9 20 given specific recognition principle. Buchanan Warley, 1917, 245 60, 38 62 149, L.R.A.1918C, 210, Ann.Cas.1918A, 1201. 21 likewise clear right sort sought created squared requirements if imposed statute local ordinance. understand contrary. supa, unanimous declared unconstitutional ordinance colr occupy houses blocks greater persons, colored persons. During course stated: 'The statutes furtherance operate qualify entitle man acquire legislation discriminating him solely color.'10 22 Harmon Tyler, 1927, 273 668, 47 471, 71 831, authority supra, invalid forbade establish home community community, 'except written consent majority opposite inhabiting City affected.' 23 precise sellers free potential purchasers considerations color. But offensive desiring barred grounds color, clear, language Court's disposition Richmond Deans, 1930, 281 704, 50 407, 74 1128. Negro, injunctive Amendment. Such finding citation sufficient support judgment.11 24 unlike just discussed, involve legislatures councils. Here patterns discrimination areas operate, determined, tne instance, individuals. Participation consists defined. crucial we confronted distinction removes operation prohibitory Since decision Cases, 1883, 109 18, 27 835, principle firmly embedded inhibited section fairly erects shield merely conduct, however wrongful.12 26 conclude, standing alone pt itioners So long purposes effectuated voluntary adherence terms, would appear violated. Cf. supra. more. secured jjdicial amount action; or, event, participation attenuated character meaning Finally, suggested, even deemed acted sense, deprive matters. II. 28 officers official capacities Amendment, proposition established decisions expression earliest construction Commonwealth Virginia Rives, 1880, 100 313, 318, 667, doubtless true act through different agencies,—either legislative, executive, authorities; prohibitions amendment extend denying agencies another.' Ex parte Virginia, 339, 347, 676, observed: 'A acts authorities. can way.' 17, 21, pointed makes void 'state kind' inconsistent guaranties therein contained, extends manifestations shape customs, executive proceedings.' Language like employed less than eighteen times during opinion.13 29 Similar expressions, giving fact numerous more recently decided. Twining Jersey, 1908, 211 78, 90, 91, 14, 53 97, said: highest state, authoritatively construing enforcing state.' Brinkerhoff—Faris Trust & Savings Co. Hill, 673, 680, 451, 454, 1107, Brandeis, guaranty well administrative branch government.' Further examples declarations opinions lacking.14 30 applications contained officials occurred jury service criminal prosecutions reason demonstrate, also, early Amendment's equally repugnant commands taken absence statute. Strauder West 303, 664, restricting amounting denial laws defendant notice opportunity defend, has, judge despite restrictions. 31 imposing penalties depriving substantive adequate defen, course, Brinkerhoff-Faris Pennoyer Neff, 1878, 95 714, 565.15 32 convictions failure provide ingredients fair hearing. Thus obtained domination mob void. Moore Dempsey, 1923, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543. And see Frank Mangum, 1915, 237 309, 35 582, 59 Convictions coerced confessions,16 perjured testimony known prosecution such,17 assistance counsel,18 exertions conflict fundamental 33 violate situations proceedings some manner procedurally unfair. recognized common-law rule formulated result though accord most rigorous conceptions procedural process.19 American Federation Labor Swing, 1941, 312 321, 568, 855, policy State, resulted restraining peaceful picketing, prohibited freedom discussion.20 Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 60 900, 84 1213, 128 1352, conviction crime breach peace was, commonds religion. Bridges California, 314 252, 190, 86 192, 159 1346, state's contempts publication Amendment.21 cf. Chicago, Q.R. 1897, 166 226, 581, 41 979. 34 short matter adoption present, consistent ruling reference, includes officials. Although, differences expressed types offend provisions, suggested immunized government. III. Against background construction, extending over three-quarters century, consider States; and, so, insure. 36 doubt full sense phrase. undisputed facts disclose willing desired homes. sellers; contracts accordingly consummated. active intervention supported panoply power, restraint. 37 abstained leaving individuals impose discriminations theys ee fit. Rather, made available coercive power government deny financially able grantors sell. difference nonenforcement accorded footing. decisions.22 instance after determined requisite signatures. order affirmed court.23 each bears unmistakable imprimatur State. noted previous policy.24 ineffective pattern discrimination, enforced, initially phrase understood refers forms. when obligation enforce commands. 39 hold granting that, stand. objectives theFourteenth clear. Because ownership color.25 'that white, stand regard whose primarily designed, them color.'26 307, 664. occasion declare specified ancestry, legitimate exercise police protectin laws. Oyama 1948, 332 633, 269. justified proper power.27 40 Respondents urge, however, ready excluding covered thereby affected.28 contention bear scrutiny. attention federal, considerations. ceated are, individual. rights.29 is, answer say induced Equal achieved indiscriminate imposition inequalities. find merit suggestion access assert confers individual demand results beyond create interests must exercised boundaries Marsh Alabama, 1946, 326 501, 66 276, 90 265. 42 problem defining scope imposes rise many persistent foremost minds Constitution, day, arisen multitude task determining offends undertaken lightly. Where, violt es charter, declare. historical context became forgotten. Whatever else achieve, concern establishment equality political preservation Seventy-five ago announced mind.30 Upon consideration, Having decided, unnecessary 44 For reasons stated, Missuri reversed. 45 Reversed. REED, JACKSON, RUTLEDGE took purchase Bishop, estate dealer, name Josephine Fitzgerald. agent concealed ownership. Kraemer 355 679. McGhee, 1947, 316 Mich 638. born naturalized jurisdiction thereof, wherein reside. No abridge nor life, liberty, property, law; laws.' 330, 331, 523, 524, 73, Slaughter-House 1873, Wall. 36, 70, 81, 394. See Flack, Adoption 640, 269, 272, herein considered statute, 'enacted vindicated it.' reenacted 31, 1870, Stat. 144. 27, U.S.C. 42, U.S.C.A. 42. 79, L.R.A. 1918C, Courts Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Glover Atlanta, 1918, 148 Ga. 285, 96 S.E. 562; Jackson Md. 311, 103 910; Clinard Winston-Salem, 217 N.C. 119, S.E.2d 867, 126 634; Allen Oklahoma 1936, 175 Okl. 421, 52 P.2d 1054; Liberty Annex Corp. Dallas, Tex.Civ.App. 289 S.W. 1067; Irvine Clifton Forge, 124 Va. 781, 97 310. Harris, 106 629, 601, 290; Cruikshank, 1876, 542, 588. Among phrases appearing following: 'the officers, judicial'; proceedings'; agents'; done authority'; kind'; 'such states adopt enforce'; commit take'; action'; authority.' Neal Delaware, 1881, 370, 397, 567; Scott McNeal, 1894, 154 34, 45, 1108, 1112, 896; Chicao , 233—235, 583, 584, 979; Hovey Elliott, 167 409, 417, 418, 841, 844, 215; Carter 1900, 177 442, 447, 687, 689, 839; Martin 1906, 200 316, 319, 338, 497; Raymond Chicago Union Traction Co., 1907, 207 20, 35, 7, 12, Ann.Cas. 757; Home Telephone Telegraph Los Angeles, 1913, 227 278, 286, 287, 312, 314, 57 510; Prudential Ins. Cheek, 1922, 259 530, 548, 516, 1044, 27; Ry. Exp. Kentucky, 274, 353, 355, 639; Mooney Holohan, 1935, 294 103, 112, 113, 55 340, 341, 342, 79 791, 98 406; 41, 117, Standard Oil Missouri, 1912, 224 270, 281, 282, 406, 56 760, Ann.Cas.1913D, 936; Brown Mississippi, 297 461, 80 682; Chambers Florida, 309 227, 472, 716; Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 64 921, 88 1192; Lee 742, 300. Pyle Kansas, 1942, 317 213, 63 177, 87 214. Powell 1932, 287 55, 77 158, 527; Williams Kaiser, 323 65 363, 89 398; Tomkins 485, 407; DeMeerleer Michigan, 1947 329 663, 596. applying Erie R. Tompkins, 1938, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188, 144 1487, rules enunciated Bakery Drivers Local Wohl, 315 769, 816, 1178; Cafeteria Employees Angelos, 1943, 320 293, 126, 58. Pennekamp 328 1029, 1295; Craig Harney, 331 367, 1249. Swain Maxwell, 448, 196 780; Koehler Rowland, 275 573, 205 217, 107. Parmalee Morris, 218 625, 188 N.W. 1180. Porter Barrett, 1925, 233 373, 206 532, 1267. 757. 1346; 855. Yick Wo Hopkins, 1886, 118 356, 1064, 220; 664; Truax Raich, 239 33, 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, Ann.Cas.1917B, 283. Restrictive exclude informed Indians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, 261, 193, 308, 905, 1352. ordinances Buchanan, Deans cited applied McCabe Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe 1914, 235 151, 161—162, 69, 71, 169; ex rel. Gaines Canada, 305 337, 232, 83 208; Wall 394;

Category: 1