Reitman v. Mulkey

Background

California voters adopted Proposition 14 (Article I, §26) in 1964, a constitutional amendment that proclaimed a private right to refuse to sell, lease, or rent residential property. Two housing disputes arose: a couple sued after being refused an apartment because of their race, and another couple challenged an eviction also said to be racially motivated. Those suits relied on California fair-housing laws that Proposition 14 aimed to nullify.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the state constitutional amendment denied people the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Supreme Court examined the amendment’s purpose, its likely effects, and the legislative history before concluding that Proposition 14 was meant to overturn state fair-housing laws (like the Unruh and Rumford Acts) and to constitutionalize a private right to discriminate. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted that analysis, reasoning that the amendment so significantly involved the State in private racial discrimination that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the amendment was invalid.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents California property owners and others from invoking the state constitution to justify racial refusals to sell or rent. It preserves the force of state fair-housing protections where applicable and limits the ability of a state amendment to shield private racial discrimination. Related state cases discussed single-family dwellings and large federally assisted developments to illustrate the amendment’s reach.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas concurred, warning about private brokers, builders, and lenders who reinforce segregation. Justice Harlan (joined by Black, Clark, and Stewart) dissented, arguing the amendment merely repealed prior state laws and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.