Hurd v. Hodge

Background

These cases arise from a block of houses in Northwest Washington where, in 1906, many lots were sold with a covenant forbidding sale or rental to Black people. Several Black buyers purchased homes on lots subject to those covenants. Neighbors who owned other lots in the block sued in federal court to stop the sales. The District Court voided the Black buyers’ deeds, enjoined sellers from selling to Black persons, and ordered the buyers to leave; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the cases reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The main question was whether federal courts in the District of Columbia may enforce private agreements that bar property sales based on race. The Court relied on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, saying that federal courts cannot use their power to enforce private race-based restrictions when that enforcement denies the same property rights Congress guaranteed to nonwhite citizens. The Justices concluded that judicial enforcement of the covenants in Washington would strip Black buyers of the right to buy, hold, and convey property and so could not stand.

Real world impact

As a result, federal courts in the Nation’s capital may not issue orders enforcing racially restrictive covenants that would deprive nonwhite buyers of property rights. The opinion left intact the idea that private parties may make agreements, but it forbids using federal judicial power to turn those agreements into court-ordered race bans. The ruling aligns with treatment of similar restrictions imposed by state courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Frankfurter wrote separately to stress an equitable point: courts exercising their conscience should not grant injunctions to enforce agreements that violate basic rights, and that principle supports the Court’s outcome.