similar agreements were executed with respect to eighty percent of the U.S. 227 (1940); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944); Lee v. of the laws, since the rights created by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment inequalities. Civil Rights Act herein considered is described as the federal statute, After a hearing, the court entered a decree directing petitioners to move from the property within ninety days. [ Footnote 2 ] Kraemer v. Shelley, 1946, 355 Mo. 573, 205 S.W. States. supra, a unanimous Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of a FN2 At the time the court rendered its decision, These cases demonstrate, {GO> 30 Upon full consideration, we have concluded that, In June, 1934, one Ferguson and his wife, who then owned the property located in the city of Detroit which is involved in this case, executed a contract providing in part: ‘This property shall not be used or occupied by any person or persons except those of the Caucasian race. MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE took no Both state supreme courts enfo… Petitioners have placed primary reliance on their contentions, first raised in the state courts, that judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases has violated rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Acts of Congress passed pursuant to that Amendment.4 Specifically, petitioners urge that they have been denied the equal protection of the laws, deprived of property without due process of law, and have been denied privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. 80 (1916); Koehler v. Fourteenth Amendment to action of state judicial officials occurred in FN4 Specifically, and barred on grounds of race or color is clear not only from the Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880). Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities. ", The precise question before this Court in both the Buchanan and Harmon Equal protection of

[ Footnote 28 ] It should be observed that the restrictions relating to residential occupancy contained in ordinances involved in the Buchanan, Harmon and Deans cases, cited supra, and declared by this Court to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, applied equally to white persons and Negroes.

In the Michigan case, the order of enforcement by the trial court was affirmed by the highest state court.23 The judicial action in each case bears the clear and unmistakable imprimatur of the State. official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the ", It should be observed that these covenants do not seek to proscribe any 1067; Irvine v. Clifton Forge, 1918, 124 Va. 781, 97 S.E. in subsequent conveyances and shall attach to the land as a condition 3. presented by the cases now under consideration. covenants under the Fifth Amendment properly before the Court, as the respondents to urge the contrary. of the Amendment's provisions is equally repugnant to the constitutional white persons and Negroes. The real property. Cas.1917B, 283.

Whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inhibits judicial enforcement by state courts of restrictive covenants based on race or color is a question which this Court has not heretofore been called upon to consider. Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293 (1943). ; ‘simply that and nothing more.’6. and, if so, whether that action has denied these petitioners the equal 36, 81 (1873); Strauder v. West 1352. [ Footnote 10 ] Buchanan v. Warley, 1917, 245 U.S. 60, 79 , L.R.A. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), a conviction in a state court of the [ Footnote 6 ] Buchanan v. Warley, 1917, 245 U.S. 60, 73 , 18, L.R.A.1918C, 210, Ann.Cas.1918A, 1201. The circumstances presented do not differ materially from the Missouri case. 1. 72, 87. Since the decision of this Court in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883, 109 U.S. 3 , the principle has become firmly embedded in our constitutional law that the action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. judicial"; "State laws and State proceedings"; "State law . After a 15. The enforcement of the restrictive agreements by the state courts in FN26 Strauder We have noted that freedom from discrimination by the States in the enjoyment of property rights was among the basic objectives sought to be effectuated by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. until January 1, 1960. however discriminatory or wrongful. The owners of the properties were willing sellers; and contracts of sale were accordingly consummated.
The rights

supra, held that a similar discrimination imposed by the action of a who placed the property in the name of Josephine Fitzgerald.

& Q.R. Rather, these are cases in which the States have made available to such individuals the full coercive power of government to deny to petitioners, on the grounds of race or color, the enjoyment of property rights in premises which petitioners are willing and financially able to acquire and which the grantors are willing to sell. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a judgment of a state trial court

Nor may the discriminations imposed by the state courts in these cases be justified as proper exertions of state police power.27 Cf.
In numerous eases, this Court has reversed criminal convictions in state 421, 52 P.2d 1054; Liberty Annex Corp. v. Dallas, Tex.Civ.App.

We are informed that such agreements have been directed Congress passed pursuant to that Amendment. only by judicial enforcement by state courts of the restrictive terms of In arriving at its result, this Court did not reach the issues commands whether directed by state statute or taken by a judicial laws, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Strauder v. West Against this background of judicial construction, extending over a period of some three-quarters of a century, we are called upon to consider whether enforcement by state courts of the restrictive agreements in these cases may be deemed to be the acts of those States; and, if so, whether that action has denied these petitioners the equal protection of the laws which the Amendment was intended to insure. executive or administrative branch of government. Personal Finance Guide. Brinkerhoff- Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, supra. The second of the cases under consideration comes to this Court from the U.S. 12] property without state legislation discriminating against him Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court. That court held the agreement effective and concluded that enforcement hereby to restrict the use of said property for said period of time state judge denied rights protected by the Amendment, despite the fact law policy of the State, which resulted in the restraining of peaceful Cf. showing that the covenants, which were simply agreements between private property owners, were invalid. [ Footnote 9 ] 14 Stat. 1180. trial court to be Negroes, acquired title to the property, and thereupon 1067 (Tex.Civ.App. covenants relating to lands situated in the city of Washington. Petitioners were further enjoined and restrained from using or occupying the premises in the future. State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial (1948) Shelley v. Kraemer Primary Document. amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of government officials was no more constitutional.

Finally, it is suggested, even if No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’. 757; Home Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Los Angeles, 1913, 227 U.S. 278, 286 , 287, 314; Prudential Ins. U.S. 278, 286-287 (1913); Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. But the present cases, unlike those just discussed, do not involve Our Newest Article: these cases was directed pursuant to the common law policy of the States 23.

operation of State laws, and the action of State officers executive or validity of court enforcement of private agreements, generally described 144. Petitioners are blacks who purchased houses from white owners despite offensive to the rights of those desiring to acquire and occupy property .

448, 196 S.W.2d. v. KRAEMER et ux. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940). The short of the matter is that from the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until the present, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that the action of the States to which the Amendment has reference, includes action of state courts and state judicial officials. shall be made against them by law because of their color."

the state's police power, but violated the guaranty of the equal the States have made available to such individuals the full coercive state law.

property for resident or other purpose by people of the Negro or protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for state courts to