Evening star., 1948-05-04
No Standing in Court

For more than a quarter of century
the courts of the District of Columbia
have consistently upheld the validity and
enforceability of restrictive real estate
covenants. The same rule, with some
variations depending upon the nature of
the covenants, has been applied almost
without exception throughout the United
States.
But for about the same length of time
the courts have held that a municipal
ordinance or a State law, which seeks to
enforce residential segregation by pre-
venting Negroes from moving into pre-
dominantly white neighborhoods or whites
into predominantly colored neighborhoodS,
Is invalid.
THE inconsistency which resulted was
emphasized by Justice Edgerton last year,
dissenting in District Court OF Appeals
decision upholding validity Of a local cove
nant. 1T is strangely inconsistent" he
said, "to hold as this court does that
although no legislature can authorize
court, even for a moment, to prevent
Negroes from acquiring and using par
ticular property, a mere owner OF prop
erty at a given moment can authorize a
court to do so for all time"
1t is that inconsistency which the Su
preme Court removed yesterday in its
unanimous decision barring enforcement
of restrictive covenants. Chief Justice
VinSon narrowed the issue to whether
enforcement by State courts of the re-
strictlve agreements may be deemed
to oe the acts of those States; and, if so,
whether that action has denied . :. equal
protection of the laws which the -Four
teenth' amendment was intended to in
sure" The court found that judicial action
by the State courts in the enforcement
of private covenants was an action by the
States; that as such action by the States
Is invalid under the Fourteenth amend
ment, then such action by the State courts
is likewise invalid.
In the District of Columbia case the
decision was based more specifically on
the theory that enforcement of covenants
by the Federal courts is contrary to the
public policy of the United StateS-"We
cannot presume that the public policy of
the United States manifests lesser con-
Germ for the protection of such basic
rights against discriminatory action of
Federal courts than against such action
taken by the courts of the States
The effect of the decision is to uphold
the right of property owners to agree
among themselves as to the disposal and
use of their property, so long as the pur-
poses of those agreements are achieved
by the parties through voluntary adher-
ence to the terms For those rights are
not affected by statute or by the Consti-
tuition, which directs it's prohibitions
against Government action. But the
courts, as instruments of the State can
not enforce the agreements. And the
agreements no longer have any stand
ing in court.
The Supreme Court has written new
law. 1t is law which in the long run will
serve public policy. To the extent that it
applies to racial covenants, it is the logical
evolution of ideas which began to take
form in law and in the Constitution after
the Civil War 1t is we'll that on such an
issue Chief Justice VinSon was able TO
bring before the country an opinion by
the six participating justices of the Su-
preme Court which found no suggestion Of
dissent. The dissent was expressed over
whelmingly in the lower courts. inter-
preting the law as it once was but is
no longer