Legal Document

481 U.S. 615 107 S.Ct. 2019 95 L.Ed.2d 594 SHAARE TEFILA CONGREGATION, et al., Petitionersv.John William COBB al. No. 85-2156. Argued Feb. 25, 1987. Decided May 18, Syllabus After their synagogue was painted with anti-Semitic slogans, phrases, and symbols, petitioners brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that the desecration by respondents violated 42 U.S.C. § 1982. The Court dismissed petitioners' claims, of Appeals affirmed, holding discrimination against Jews is not racial under Held: 1. A charge within meaning 1982 cannot be made out only defendants were motivated animus. It also necessary to allege animus directed toward kind group Congress intended protect when it passed statute. P. 617. 2. can state a claim since they among peoples considered distinct races hence protection statute at time passed. They are foreclosed from stating cause action simply because part what today Caucasian race. St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 604, 2022, 582 (1987). Pp. 617-618. 785 F.2d 523 (CA 4 1986), reversed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion for unanimous Court. Patricia A. Brannan, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Deborah T. Garren, Baltimore, Md., respondents. Justice WHITE 1 On November 2, 1982, outside walls Shaare Tefila Congregation Silver Spring, Maryland, sprayed red black paint large symbols. few months later, some individual members this defendants' had §§ 1981, 1985(3) Maryland common law trespass, nuisance, intentional infliction emotional distress. motion Rules Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (6), all claims. affirmed respects. (CA4 1986). Petitioners petitioned writ certiorari. We granted petition, 479 812, 62, 93 21 (1986), we now reverse judgment Appeals. 2 Section guarantees citizens United States, "the same right . as enjoyed white inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, convey real personal property." section forbids both official private racially discriminatory interference property rights, Jones Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 409, 88 2186, 20 1189 (1968). Petitioners' allegation deprived hold violation prejudice. unsuccessfully argued group, but conduct actionable viewed held "intended apply situations which plaintiff member merely perceived so defendants." F.2d, 526 (emphasis original). believed "[b]ecause discrimination," id., 527, correct dismissing claim. 3 agree animus; well towards To otherwise would unacceptably extend reach petitioners, however, erred other defendants. That view rested on notion thought separate race, make construction have rejected Saint U.S., S.Ct., ----. Our case observed definitions race today, ante, 609, 613, ----, concluded identifiable classes persons who subjected solely ancestry or ethnic characteristics." At 2028. As makes clear, question before us whether today's standards, whether, adopted, constituted people protect. evident legislative history reviewed College, review need repeat here, Arabs then 5 therefore reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 6 ordered.

Classification Label: 1