The Shelly V. Kraemer Constitutional Question: Racial Discrimination

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced. The case arose after an African-American family, the Shelleys, purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1945, unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The covenant prevented people of the Negro or Mongolian Race from occupying the property. The constitutional question at the heart of the case was whether enforcement of such racially restrictive covenants violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which stated that no state.... The case also raised basic constitutional issues regarding the validity of court enforcement of private agreements designed to exclude persons of a designated race or color from the ownership or occupancy of real property.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

The Shelley family

In 1945, the Shelleys purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. This covenant prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property. Thirty out of thirty-nine parcel owners in the neighbourhood had signed a similar restrictive covenant, stating that no homes were to be sold to any Black people. The Shelleys had assumed that the home was not subject to a racial covenant, considering that the neighbourhood was integrated and several other Black families were already living on the block.

Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession of the property. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the Shelleys because it was a private agreement between the original parties. The Shelley family appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, where they were represented by attorney George L. Vaughn. The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General also filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in support of the Shelleys. On May 3, 1948, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of the Shelley family, holding that racially restrictive covenants were unenforceable and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The restrictive covenant

In 1945, an African-American family, the Shelleys, purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. This covenant prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property. Thirty out of thirty-nine parcel owners in the neighbourhood had signed the agreement, stating that no home was to be sold to any person who was black.

Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession of the property. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the Shelleys because it was a private agreement between its original parties.

The U.S. Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, argued that the restrictive covenants were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 6-0 decision in favour of the Shelleys, holding that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.

The Court's decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The enforcement of a racially based restrictive covenant in a state court would violate this clause as it would constitute discriminatory state action.

The Supreme Court of Missouri

In 1945, an African-American family, the Shelleys, purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri, unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. This covenant prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession, and the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the purchasers because it was a private agreement.

The Missouri Supreme Court's decision upheld the racially restrictive covenant and prohibited the Shelleys from taking ownership of the property. This case raised basic constitutional issues and led to the U.S. Supreme Court granting certiorari to determine whether enforcement of such covenants violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits state action that would violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark ruling that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced. The Court decided the case on the question of equal protection, making it unnecessary to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding due process and privileges and immunities. This ruling eliminated a common method of promoting racial residential segregation and provided a precedent for enforcing the Equal Protection Clause in future cases.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

The Fourteenth Amendment

Shelley v. Kraemer is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced. The case arose after an African-American family, the Shelleys, purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1945. They were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911, which prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.

Louis Kraemer, who lived nearby, sued to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession, and the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the covenant. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated Shelley v. Kraemer with McGhee v. Sipes, another case involving a racially restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court considered the question of whether race-based restrictive covenants were legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause

Shelley v. Kraemer is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced. The case was brought about after an African-American family, the Shelleys, purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1945. They were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911, which prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying it. Louis Kraemer, another resident, sued to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession of the property.

The Supreme Court of Missouri initially held that the covenant was enforceable against the Shelleys because it was a private agreement between the original parties. However, the case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which considered the constitutional question of whether the enforcement of such covenants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Shelley v. Kraemer set an important precedent for future interpretations and enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause. It provided a basis for challenging racial segregation and discriminatory practices in housing and paved the way for further civil rights cases. The case established that the government's role in permitting discrimination within courthouses could exacerbate the harm caused by discriminatory actions.

Frequently asked questions