Buchanan v. Warley

1916-04-11
Share:

Headline: City racial segregation ordinance struck down as unconstitutional, blocking rules that barred Black buyers from living in majority-white blocks and protecting homeowners’ right to sell across races.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Stops local laws preventing sale of homes based solely on buyer’s race.
  • Protects sellers’ right to sell property to buyers of any race.
  • Allows Black buyers to acquire and live in previously segregated blocks.
Topics: housing discrimination, residential segregation, property rights, constitutional rights

Summary

Background

A white homeowner contracted to sell a Louisville lot to a Black purchaser who intended to live there. The written sale said the buyer would not be required to complete the purchase unless he had the legal right to occupy the property as a residence. The city had passed an ordinance that made it illegal for a person of color to move into a block where more houses were occupied by white people than by colored people. Kentucky courts enforced that ordinance and denied the seller’s request to make the buyer complete the purchase.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a city may prevent the sale or occupancy of property solely because of the buyer’s race. The opinion explains that the Fourteenth Amendment protects property rights, including the right to acquire, use, and dispose of property, and that federal laws give all citizens equal rights to buy and sell property. While local governments have broad power to regulate for health and safety, that power cannot override constitutional protections. The Court rejected the ordinance because it singled out people solely by color and thus unlawfully interfered with the seller’s and buyer’s protected property rights. The Kentucky judgment was reversed.

Real world impact

The decision prevents enforcement of local laws that bar people from buying or occupying homes based only on race. It affirms that homeowners may not be deprived of the right to sell to a willing buyer because of that buyer’s color. The ruling distinguishes this kind of forced residential segregation from earlier cases that allowed separate public accommodations when equal facilities were provided.

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?

Related Cases