Evening star., 1948-05-04

/ ignition by this court in Buchanan
v. Warley, supra at 10. There, tn,
court observed that, not only
through the operation of the 14tl
Amendment, but also by virtue O.
the statutes enacted in further.
ance of its purpose including the
provisions here considered, colorec
man is granted the right to acquire
property free from interference by
discriminatory State legislation. Ir
Shelley v. Kraemer. supra, we have
held that the 14th Amendment also
forbids such discrimination where
imposed by State courts in the en-.
forcement Of restrictive covenants
That holding is clearly indicative OF
the construction to be given to the
relevant provisions of the Civil
Rights Act in their application to
the courts of the District of Co
lumbia.
Moreover. the explicit language
employed by Congress to effectuate
its purposes. leaves no doubt that
judicial enforcement of the restric-
tive covenants by the courts of the
District of Columbia is prohibited
by the Civil Rights Act. That
statute. by its terms, requires that
all citizens of the United States
shall have the same right "as is
enjoyed by white citizens TO
inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold
and convey real and personal prop
erty." That the Negro petitioners
have been denied that right by
virtue of the action of the Federal
courts of the District is clear. The
Negro petitioners entered into
contracts of sale with willing sellers
for the purchase of properties upon
which they desired to establish
homes. Solely because of their race
and color they are confronted with
orders of court diveSting their titles
in the properties and ordering that
the premises be vacated : White
sellers, one of whom is a petitioner
here, have been enjoined from SELL
ing the properties to any Negro OF
colored person. Under such circum-
stances, to suggest that the Negro
petitioners have been accorded the
same rights as white citizens to pur-
chase, hold. and convey real prop
erty is to reject the plain meaning
of language We hold that the
action of the District court directed
against the Negro purchasers and
the white sellers denies rights in
tended by Congress to be protected
by the Civil Rights Act and that
consequently, the action cannot
stand.
Other Considerations.
But even In the absence OF the
statute. there are other consldera-
tions which would indicate that en-
forcement of restrictive covenants
in these cases is judicial action con-
trary to the public policy of the
United States, and as such should
be corrected by this Court in the
exercise of its supervisory powers
over the courts Of the District Of
Columbia.
See United States v Hutchenson,
3f2 u. S, 2le, 235 1a4D: Johnson V.
United States, l63F, 30,32 190Sl.
Section 240(al OF the Judicial Code.
AZ Stat. a3S. IS U. S. G. 347 (al,
provides: In any case, civil or criminal.
in a circuit court Of appeals, or in
the Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia, it shall be competent for
the Supreme Court of the United States,
upon the petition of any party hereto,
whether Government or other litigant.
to require by certiorari, either before or
after a Judgment or decree by such
lower court, that the cause be certified
. the Supreme Court for determina-