Evening star., 1948-05-04

the opinion that the action of tn,
District Court was consistent witt
earlier decisions of the Court o
Appeals and that those decision
should be held determinative ir
these cases.
! Petitioners have attacked the ju.
dicial enforcement of the restrictiv,
covenants in these cases on a wild,
variety of grounds. Primary reli.
ance, however. is placed on tn,
contention that such governmental
action on the part of the courts O.
the District of Columbia Is forbidden
by the due process clause of the 5tf
Amendment of the Federal Consti.
| tuition.
Other contentious made by petition
ers include the following: Judicial en-
torsemens OF the ne. cevenants 9fan Is contrary
rived from the Civil Rights Act of 1865
and to treaty oblisations of the United
States contained in the United Nations
Charter; enforcement OF the covenants
IS contrary TO the public policy; en-
forcement OF the covenants is ineouit-
able.
Whether judicial enforcement Of
racial restrictive agreements by thu
Federal courts of the District o1
Columbia violates the 5th Amend.
ment has never been adjudicated BY
this court In Corrigan v. Buckley
271 U. S. 323 1925, an appeal was
taken to this court from Judgment
of the United States Court of Ap.
peals for the District Of Columbia
which had affirmed an order of the
lower court granting enforcement tc
a restrictive covenant. But as was
pointed out in our opinion in Shelley
V. Kraemer, supra, the only consti-
tutional issue which had been raised
in the lower courts in the Corrigan
case. and. consequently. the only
constitutional question before this
court on appeal, related to the valid
ity Of the private agreements as
such Nothing in the opinion of this
court in that case. therefore, may
properly be regarded as an ajudica-
ton of the issue presented by petit
TONERS in this case which concerns
not the validity of the restrictive
agreements standing alone, but the
validity of court enforcement Of the
restrictive covenants under the due
process clause Of the 5th Amend
ment. See Shelley v. Kraemer
supra.
Prior to the present litisation, the
United States Court OF Appeals for the
District of Columbia has considered
enforcement
Ssspp' Sop C. c0rrissa sa ssa sss sSsklfH se6 g
Torrey v Wo!fes. 5s App. b c; 4. 6 F.
App, b. c. 365, 80, r. I'd ssl u929l;
sSa, 20 r. I'd as3 Gs2a); Grady '.
81 aGaa0; Euedity. SOrsvis5, =
= sfs, ASR Hsyl p s Burssss g. i$s + % App
D. c. 343 I47 r I'd s6e 1e45l; Mays
:; Burgess ,:s soy, 90 y g. App. D. c. 1885, 1872
nrst st Of tht asa" cases decided BY the United
States Court OF Appeals and relied on
the opinion Of the Court contains no
consideration OF the specific issues pre-
sented to this court in these cases. An
" Buckley, was dismissed by this court.
27l U. S. 3?3 4a26. See discussion
supra. In Hundley v. Gorewitz. supra.
tne UnlteQ states court OF hppedb re-
fused enforcement OF a restrictive
agreement where changes in the charac-
ter of the neighborhood would have
rendered enforcement ineauitable.
Ordinances Invalid.
This Court has declared invalic
municipal ordinances restricting oc'
cupancy In designated areas to per.
sons of specified race and color a,
denying rights Of white sellers and
Negro purchasers Of property, guar
anteed by the due process clause o1
the 14th Amendment. Buchanan v
Warley, 245 U. S. so ls10; Harmon
v. Tyler, 273 U. S. 668 1927: Rich
mond v. Deans. 281 U. s. 704 1890
Petitioners urge that judicial en-
forcement Of the restrictive coven-
ants by courts Of the District oi
Columbia should likewise be held tc
deny rights Of white sellers ano
Negro purchasers of property, guar
anteed by the due process clause
Of the 5th Amendment. Petitioners
point out that this court in Hira
bayashi V. United States. 800 U. s
81, 100 0943, reached its decision
in a case in which issues under the