Does judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds constitute state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

African American families, the Shelleys in Missouri and the McGhees in Michigan, purchased homes in neighborhoods subject to racially restrictive covenants. These covenants explicitly prohibited the sale or occupancy of property to non-Caucasians. Upon learning of these purchases, other property owners in the respective neighborhoods initiated legal action to enforce the covenants and prevent the African American families from occupying their newly acquired homes.

The state courts in both Missouri and Michigan ruled in favor of enforcing the restrictive covenants, effectively barring the Shelleys and McGhees from residing in their purchased properties. These rulings upheld the validity and enforceability of the racially discriminatory covenants, despite the families' legal property acquisitions.

The plaintiffs initially filed suits in their respective state courts to enforce racially restrictive covenants. In Missouri, the trial court ruled against enforcement, finding the covenant invalid. However, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed this decision and ordered the covenant to be enforced. In Michigan, the trial court enforced the covenant, and the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed this ruling. Following these state-level decisions, both cases were appealed to the United States Supreme Court for further review.

(Vinson, C.J.)

Yes. Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state-sanctioned racial discrimination in property rights, and court enforcement of discriminatory private agreements constitutes impermissible state action. While private parties may enter into racially restrictive covenants, state courts cannot enforce such agreements without violating constitutional protections. The Equal Protection Clause creates personal rights that cannot be denied through the imposition of inequalities, regardless of whether the covenants are enforced against whites or racial minorities. State action encompasses more than just legislative or executive acts; it includes judicial enforcement of private discriminatory agreements. This interpretation aligns with the fundamental purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens. The distinction between private discrimination and state-enforced discrimination is crucial, as it delineates the boundary of constitutional reach. Private bias, while potentially reprehensible, does not violate the Constitution unless it involves state participation. However, when courts lend their power to enforce racially discriminatory agreements, they cross the line into unconstitutional state action. This principle extends beyond property rights to other areas where state courts might be asked to enforce discriminatory private agreements. The decision reinforces the idea that the judiciary, as an arm of the state, must not be complicit in perpetuating racial discrimination, even when rooted in private contracts. This interpretation of state action under the Fourteenth Amendment significantly expands the scope of constitutional protections against racial discrimination in housing and property ownership.

Concurrence (Douglas, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Frankfurter, J.) The judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision marks a significant step in dismantling the legal infrastructure of racial segregation. The Constitution prohibits state courts from enforcing agreements that would deny property rights based on race. This ruling extends beyond the specific cases at hand, establishing a broader principle that state action cannot be used to perpetuate racial discrimination in housing.

Concurrence (Murphy, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Burton, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.