Shelley v. Kraemer

Background

These cases arose when Black buyers bought homes in neighborhoods governed by written neighborhood agreements that barred occupancy by people of certain races. In St. Louis, an agreement recorded in 1911 covered a district of lots and forbade occupancy by non‑Caucasians; many nearby lots had long been occupied by Black families. In Detroit, a 1934 contract barred non‑Caucasian occupants unless a large percentage of the block adopted similar restrictions. State trial courts and then state supreme courts ordered Black purchasers to leave and divested title under those recorded restrictions.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a state court’s enforcement of a private racial restriction is action by the State that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids. The Court explained that private agreements alone are not federal constitutional violations, but when state courts enforce those agreements they act with the coercive power of government. Judicial enforcement therefore counts as state action. Applying equal protection principles, the Court held that using state courts to deny property rights on account of race violates the Fourteenth Amendment and cannot be sustained.

Real world impact

Because the judgments ordering eviction and divestiture were based on court enforcement of race‑based covenants, the Court reversed the state supreme courts’ rulings. The decision means that state judicial enforcement of private racial restrictions cannot be used to exclude people from buying or occupying homes. The Court found it unnecessary to decide separately whether other constitutional claims, such as due process or privileges and immunities, were also violated.