Williams Et Al. v. Shaffer

1967-01-23

Headline: Court declined to review a Georgia summary‑eviction law, leaving a bond requirement that can force poor tenants from their homes in place despite a dissent urging review on equal‑treatment grounds.

Holding: The Court declined to hear the challenge and denied review, leaving the Georgia summary‑eviction bond procedure in place while dissenting Justices said it unfairly prevents poor tenants from getting a hearing.

Real World Impact:

Leaves Georgia’s bond requirement in place, making it harder for poor tenants to keep their homes.
Allows landlords to use quick dispossessory warrants that can evict tenants who can’t post bond.
Denial of review means this constitutional question remains undecided by the Court.

Topics: eviction procedures, tenant rights, housing for low-income renters, access to courts

Summary

Background

A group of poor tenants challenged a Georgia law that lets landlords obtain quick eviction warrants unless a tenant posts a security bond. The tenants filed counter‑affidavits and told the court they could not afford the bond and offered to pay rents into the court registry. Their filings were apparently rejected, petitions to stop eviction were denied, they were summarily evicted, and the Georgia Supreme Court said the case was moot after eviction.

Reasoning

The central question presented was whether the bond requirement effectively denies poor renters a real chance at a hearing and thus violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment (the Equal Protection Clause). The full Court did not take the case; it declined review and left the state procedure in place. Justice Douglas (joined by the Chief Justice) and Justice Brennan would have granted review, arguing that financial barriers cannot be used to deny access to the courts and that the question was too important to be dismissed as moot.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the Georgia summary‑eviction bond rule remained effective in this dispute, meaning indigent tenants can be forced out without the opportunity to secure a hearing if they cannot post bond. The decision was not a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality, so future cases could reach the Court and change this result.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas wrote a dissent urging the Court to hear the case and stressing the unequal impact on poor tenants; the Chief Justice agreed and Justice Brennan also favored granting review.