Legal Definitions - Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that determined that while private individuals can enter into discriminatory agreements, state courts cannot enforce those agreements without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

At the heart of the case was the issue of "restrictive covenants" – private agreements, often written into property deeds, that prohibited the sale or occupancy of property by people of certain races. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, primarily applies to actions taken by the government (known as "state action"), not to purely private conduct. However, the Court reasoned that when a state court steps in to enforce a private discriminatory agreement, the court's action itself becomes "state action." By using the power of the state's judicial system to uphold racial discrimination, the state would be denying individuals their constitutional right to equal protection.

Therefore, the Court ruled that state courts could not legally enforce racially restrictive covenants. This decision was crucial in dismantling a common tool of racial segregation in housing across the United States, even though it did not outlaw the private creation of such covenants. It simply meant that they could not be upheld by the force of law.

• Example 1: Discriminatory Historical Society Charter

  Imagine a historical society that owns several properties in a charming, old neighborhood. Its original charter, drafted in the 1930s, contains a clause stating that any property sold by the society can only be purchased by individuals who can trace their ancestry to the original European settlers of the region. A prospective buyer, whose family immigrated from Asia several generations ago, makes a compelling offer on one of these properties. The historical society rejects the offer, explicitly citing the discriminatory clause in its charter. The buyer sues, seeking to compel the sale, and the society asks the court to uphold its charter as a private agreement.

  How it illustrates Shelley v. Kraemer: The historical society's charter is a private document. However, if a state court were to rule in favor of the society and enforce this ethnically restrictive clause, the court's decision would be considered "state action." Under the precedent of Shelley v. Kraemer, such judicial enforcement of a private discriminatory agreement would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it would use the power of the state to deny individuals equal rights based on their ancestry.

• Example 2: Private Club's Discriminatory Bylaws and Court Intervention

  Consider a private, members-only social club whose founding bylaws include a rule that only allows individuals of a specific gender to be full voting members, thereby excluding others from significant club privileges and property rights within the club. A non-voting member of the excluded gender challenges this rule in court, seeking to gain full membership rights. The club, in turn, asks the court to uphold its private bylaws as a legitimate private agreement.

  How it illustrates Shelley v. Kraemer: The golf club's bylaws are a private agreement among its members. However, if a state court were to enforce these bylaws and deny the individual equal membership rights based on gender, that judicial enforcement would constitute "state action." Following Shelley v. Kraemer, the court's use of state power to uphold a discriminatory private agreement would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying equal protection under the law.