Class 16 Case Brief-Shelley vs. Kraemer
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
402B
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
2
Uploaded by CaptainWorld11813
Gisela Aguilar
February 7, 2024
LAW 402B
Class 16 Case Brief
Shelley
vs.
Kraemer
Facts:
In Missouri, a group of homeowners in St. Louis created a homeowners' association and
enforced restrictive covenants on properties in the area. One such covenant stated that no
property in the neighborhood could be sold or owned by anyone who wasn't Caucasian. The
defendant in the case, Shelley, was a black family who unknowingly purchased a property
subject to this restrictive covenant. The plaintiff in the case, Kraemer, was a white homeowner,
along with other property owners in the neighborhood, who sued to prevent Shelley from owning
and occupying the property due to the racially restrictive covenant. This case is known as Shelley
vs. Kraemer.
Issue:
Can a state court enforce privately entered land covenants that discriminate?
Rule:
Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment as it constitutes state action.
Analysis/Application:
The court decided that by enforcing racially restrictive property covenants, the court was
exercising State Action. The court also stated that the covenant was valid, even though it was
repulsive, as long as it remained a voluntary agreement between private citizens. However, the
State could not use the full coercive power of government to enforce the discriminatory
restriction.
Conclusion:
The trial court denied the Plaintiff because not all property owners had signed the covenant,
which was a technicality. However, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
decision, and the US Supreme Court granted Certiorari. The US Supreme Court declared that
judicial action taken by a State Court to compel and enforce a racially restrictive covenant
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and it amounted to State Action.
The Court also ruled that the State Court's endorsement of the covenant against the Defendant
violated his right to Due Process and Equal Protection. Consequently, the rulings of the State
Courts were reversed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help