Legal Document

393 U.S. 385 89 Supreme Court Reporter 557 21 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 616 Nellie HUNTER, Appellant,v.Edward O. ERICKSON, Mayor of City Akron, et al. Number 63. Argued Nov. 13, 1968. Decided Jan. 20, 1969. Robert L. Carter, New York City, for appellant. Louis Federal KF105 F3 Claiborne, Washington, D.C., the States, as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Alvin C. Vinopal, Ohio, appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 The question in this case is whether has denied a Negro citizen, Hunter, equal protection its laws amending city charter to prevent council from implementing any ordinance dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination housing without approval majority voters Akron. 2 Akron Council 1964 enacted fair premised on recognition social and economic losses society which flow substandard, ghetto tendency breed segregation contrary policy 'assure opportunity all persons live decent facilities regardless race, color, religion, ancestry national origin.' Ordinance 873 § 1. A Commission Equal Opportunity Housing was established office enforce antidiscrimination sections through conciliation persuasion if possible, but, not, then 'such order facts warrant,' based upon hearing at witnesses may be subpoenaed, entitled enforcement courts. 873—1964, amended 926—1964. 3 Seeking invoke machinery had been her benefit, Hunter addressed complaint asserting that real estate agent come show list houses sale, but meeting Mrs. 'stated she could not me prepared because owners specified they did wish their shown negroes.' Hunter's affidavit met reply unavailable provide: 4 'Any regulates use, advertisement, transfer, listing assignment, lease, sublease financing property kind interest therein basis origin must first approved electors voting regular general election before said shall effective. Any such effect time adoption section cease effective until provided herein.' Charter 137. 5 proposal amendment placed ballot petition more than 10% Akron's voters, duly passed majority. 6 Appellant brought an action Ohio courts behalf municipality, herself, others similarly situated, obtain writ mandamus requiring convene require Director Law process complaint. trial court initially held provisions invalid under state law, reversed, State ex rel. versus Erickson, St.2d 130, 216 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 371 (1966). On remand, rendered ineffective amendment, affirmed, holding repugnant Protection Clause Constitution. 7 conten moot passage Civil Rights Act 1968, Public 90—284, 82 Statutes-at-Large 73, decision Jones Alfred Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Mayer Co., 392 409, 88 2186, 20 1189 (1968), October 30, 1965, Rev.Code Ann., Tit. 41, chapter 4112. It true each these events related open housing, none legislation involved intended pre-empt local ordinances provide rights remedies are substitutes law. 8 1968 specifically preserves defers laws,1 1866 Act2 considered should read together later statute same subject, Stewart, 311 60, 64—65, 61 102, 85 L.Ed. 40 (1940); Talbot Seeman, Cranch 1, 34 35, 15 (1801), so far detailed explicitly preserves. If mooted case, surely would have when validity twice it after passed. Moreover, law crucial here apply 'commercial housing,' reading we can imagine do case,3 though does. Finally, cannot since provides mechanism unmatched either federal legislation. Unlike programs, brings people tribunal. precisely sort very localized solution Congress meant defer. We therefore reject contention moot. 9 argues unlike Reitman Mulkey, 387 369, 87 1627, 18 830 (1967) declares no right discriminate authorizes encourages discrimination, places ban enactment ordinances. But need rest decide case. Here, Reitman, there racial classification treating matters differently other matters. 10 By adding 137 unquestionably wields power,4 only suspended operation existing forbidding also required future take effect.5 Section thus drew distinction between those groups who sought law's against discriminations sale rental regulate transactions pursuit ends. Those sought, benefit from, most regulating market remained subject rule: become 30 days Council, immediately emergency measure, referendum requested filing proper timely petition.6 Passage sufficed unless themselves invoked charter. bias, enough. election, provision use expedited ordinarily available. obviously made substantially difficult secure 11 Only end 'race, ancestry' run 137's gantlet. draws distinctions among religious groups. Negroes whites, Jews Catholics requirements them end. nevertheless disadvantages barring bar otherwise favor. automatic system does reach sexual political grounds, children dogs, nor affect tenants seeking heat better maintenance landlords, rent control, urban renewal, public new building codes. 12 although face treats white, Jew gentile identical manner, reality impact falls minority. needs did, might bothersome that. Like specification candidates' race ballot, Anderson Martin, 375 399, 84 454, 430 (1964), burden minorities within governmental process. This permissible denying vote, others. Cf. Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 339, 81 125, 110 (1960); Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 1362, 506 (1964); Avery Midland County, Texas, 390 474, 1114, 45 (1968). preamble recited population consists 'people different origin, many whom circumscribed segregated areas, substandard unhealthful, unsafe, unsanitary overcrowded cond tions, housing.' Such situation background assessed. 13 Because core Fourteenth Amendment prevention meaningful unjustified official Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71, 394 (1873); Strauder West Virginia, 100 303, 307—308, 25 664 (1880); Ex parte 344—345, 676 McLaughlin Florida, 379 184, 192, 283, 288 222 Loving 388 10, 1817, 1822, 1010 (1967), classifications 'constitutionally suspect,' Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 499, 74 693, 694, 98 884 (1954), 'most rigid scrutiny,' Tayosaburo Korematsu 323 214, 216, 65 193, 194, 194 (1944). They 'bear heavier justification' classifications, 289 (1964). 14 unimpressed justifications discrimination. Characterizing simply move slowly delicate area relations emphasizes 137, justify it. unnecessary implement go slowly, allow participate decision.7 Likewise, insisting distribute legislative power desires retain over certain subjects generally true, principles furnish justification structure violate Amendment. Nor implementation change popular immunize Lucas Forty-Fourth General Assembly Colorado, 713, 736—737, 1459, 1473—1474, 632 sovereignty itself constitutional limitations adopted remain unrepealed. Even proceeded vote town municipal legislation, instead chosen complex system. Having done so, disadvantage particular group making enact dilute person's give smaller representation another comparable size. hold discriminates minorities, constitutes real, substantial, invidious denial laws. Reversed. 17 HARLAN, STEWART joins, concurring. At outset, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions think well sketch my approach statutes internal challenged For purposes, believe define powers institutions fall into two classes. First, clear purpose further aims. discriminatory face, permitted stand supported interests weighty substantial kind. 288, 22 19 Most institutions, however, second class. designed aim providing just framework diverse our fairly compete assisting one struggle opponents. Consider, example, procedure requires almost submitted electorate signs appropriate petition.* rule protecting detriment will sometimes operate favor faction; another. citizens whenever raises emotional opposition significant community, matter directly. Statutes type, grounded democratic principle, occasionally interests. institution fair, always expected win. Council's were defeated referendum, undoubtedly lose important battle, thereby protection. analysis applies government even solidly rooted history referendum. existence bicameral legislature executive veto occasion make achieve favorable legislation; nevertheless, attacked grounds founded neutral principles. Similarly, makes relatively amend constitution commonly justified theory thoroughly scrutinized soberly simple statutory enactments. too, gain part constitution, adopts position strict neutrality question. See 389, 1638, (dissenting Harlan, J.). obliged undertake arduous task principle. In us, attempted allocate interest. Since normal 289, And failed o sustain burden. city's principal argument support relies undisputed fact often raise passions community highest pitch. necessary, pass assure particularly sensitive issues ultimately decided electorate. already procedure, issue insist. prospect really arouses passionate opposition, final say. Consequently, arouse extraordinary controversy. being perceive legitimate degree vindicates taken here. As Court's entirely consistent basic control join 23 BLACK, dissenting. 24 Article I, Constitution provides, things, that: 'No * Bill Attainder, post facto Law, impairing Obligation Contracts *.' anywhere bars repealing pleases. Although denies fact, 'wields power' barred forbids 'on result what commanded injunction keep books favors purports find forbid repeal 'deny person jurisdiction laws.' some protests Due Process strike down shock conscience offend sense considers 'fair' 'fundamental' 'arbitrary' 'contrary beliefs English-speaking people.' now protest vigorously wants retain. Of course ruling Marbury Madison, 60 (1803), invalidate account race. put roadblocks itself, doing, encroach State's old decides so. 26 Another used supposedly number cases have. own convinced experience serving useful purpose. casts aspersions vote. say reason. unconstitutional, field 'must effective.' uses granted key repealer Negroes. Just consider moment. Government, boast 'of people, d people,' conditioning condemns unconstitutional eyes Court! There past equally fallacious undemocratic today, recall time, think, empower repeal. ordinance. Nothing construed 'to limit subdivision State' giving similar rights, deference given enforcement. VIII, §§ 815, 810(c), 89, 86. 'All right, every Territory, enjoyed white thereof inherit, purchase, sell, hold, convey personal property.' 27, amended, 42 Code KF62 1982. unlawful 'any person' '(r)efuse sell deny withhold commercial (or) color' prospective owner. Ann. 4112.02(H) 4112.02(H)(1) (emphasis added). 'Commercial housing' defined exclude residence offered owner his broker, Salesman, agent, employee.' 4112.01(K) (Supp.1967). '(p)rint, publish, circulate statement advertisement relating (of a) indicates preference, limitation, specification, 4112.02(H)(6) seek complain affront sensibilities 'circulated' (if goes far) relief seeks statute. See, e.g., Evans Newton, 382 296, 86 486, 373 (1966); Burton Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 715, 856, (1961); Shelley Kraemer, 334 68 836, 92 1161, American Reports, 441 (1948). Thus mere violates Ordinances initiated signed 7% measures repealed obtained voters. initiate review decisions, n. 6, supra. procedural prerequisites perfectly reasonable, gathering voters' signatures passing illustrates. exempts following procedure: '(a) Annual appropriation (b) resolutions disapproval appointments removals Council. (c) Actions bonds. (d) submission proposition electors. (e) street improvements petitioned feet front benefited specially assessed cost thereof.' suggested exceptions disadvantaging

Classification Label: 1