Connection lost
Server error
Reitman v. Mulkey Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A California constitutional amendment allowed private landlords to discriminate based on race. The Supreme Court found the amendment unconstitutional because it effectively authorized and encouraged racial discrimination, thus constituting prohibited state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal Significance: This case expanded the “state action” doctrine, holding that a state law can violate the Equal Protection Clause not just by compelling discrimination, but by significantly encouraging it, thereby becoming unconstitutionally involved in private discriminatory acts.
Reitman v. Mulkey Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1964, California voters passed Proposition 14, which added Article I, Section 26 to the state constitution. This provision stated that neither the state nor its agencies could limit the right of any person to sell, lease, or rent their residential property to whomever they chose in their “absolute discretion.” This amendment effectively nullified California’s existing fair housing statutes, the Unruh and Rumford Acts, which had prohibited racial discrimination in certain housing markets. The case arose from two separate actions where Black plaintiffs were refused housing by private landlords solely on account of their race. The landlords defended their actions by citing the new constitutional provision. The California Supreme Court found that Article I, § 26 was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this holding.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state constitutional amendment that repeals existing fair housing laws and affirmatively protects a private property owner’s right to discriminate on any basis, including race, constitute state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes. The Court affirmed the judgment of the California Supreme Court, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state constitutional amendment that repeals existing fair housing laws and affirmatively protects a private property owner’s right to discriminate on any basis, including race, constitute state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This decision broadened the state action doctrine by establishing that a state Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillu
Legal Rule
A state law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor
Legal Analysis
The Court deferred to the California Supreme Court's assessment of the provision's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state constitutional amendment that protects a private property owner’s absolute
