Corrigan v. Buckley
Headline: Racially restrictive housing covenant left enforced as Court dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding constitutional and federal-law challenges unsubstantial and declining to decide enforcement.
Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the asserted constitutional and federal-law objections to a racially restrictive property covenant were unsubstantial.
- Leaves lower-court injunction enforcing racially restrictive covenant in place.
- Court declines to decide whether courts should enforce private racial covenants.
Summary
Background
This case began when a white property owner sued to stop a sale of a house to a Black woman. In 1921 thirty white owners of twenty-five homes on a Washington street made a recorded agreement that none of the properties would be used or sold to people of the negro race for twenty-one years. In 1922 one white owner agreed to sell a house to a Black buyer, and the buyer and seller both knew of the agreement. The seller later planned to convey the house, and the white owner sued in equity to stop the sale and enforce the recorded covenant. The lower court entered an injunction and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the defendants then asked this Court to review the case by arguing federal constitutional and statutory questions.
Reasoning
The Court’s narrow question was whether the asserted federal constitutional or statutory issues were substantial enough to give this Court jurisdiction. The Court held they were not. It explained that the Fifth Amendment limits the federal government, the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery does not itself invalidate private property contracts in this context, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies to government action rather than private agreements. The federal statutes invoked likewise did not, on their face, prohibit private owners from making or enforcing such a covenant. The Court also noted a due-process claim was not properly presented here. Because those federal questions lacked color or substance, the Court said it could not entertain the appeal.
Real world impact
As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction and did not reach whether the covenant is unenforceable on public-policy or discrimination grounds. The lower-court injunction remains in effect, and the broader legal question about enforcing private racial covenants was left unresolved for lower courts or future cases.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?