Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Read a random definition: remedial enforcement

A quick definition of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948):

Shelley v. Kraemer is a court case that said it's not okay to have rules in property deeds that say only white people can buy the property. In 1945, a black family bought a house without knowing about the rule, and white neighbors tried to stop them from moving in. The Supreme Court said that this rule is not fair and goes against the law that says everyone should be treated equally. This case helped make it easier for black people to buy homes in neighborhoods where they were not allowed before.

A more thorough explanation:

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that said that it's unconstitutional to have rules in property deeds that stop people who aren't white from buying property. This goes against the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that everyone should be treated equally under the law.

For example, in 1911, a lot of people who owned property in a neighborhood made a rule that said that no one who wasn't white could buy property there. In 1945, a Black family called the Shelleys bought a property there without knowing about the rule. The Kraemers, who were white, and other neighbors tried to stop the Shelleys from owning the property because of the rule. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed with the rule and said that the Shelleys couldn't own the property.

The U.S. Supreme Court looked at the Shelleys' case to see if the rule was against the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court said that the rule was against the Fourteenth Amendment because it stopped Black people from buying property just because of their race. The Supreme Court said that even though the rule was made by private people, the Fourteenth Amendment still applied because the government was enforcing the rule.

Shelley v. Kraemer was important because it stopped people from making rules that stopped Black people from living in certain neighborhoods. This helped to make sure that Black people had more rights during a time when they were treated unfairly.

shelf registration | Shelley's case

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.