Shelley v. Kraemer
Citation: 334 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1948)
Facts
J.D. and Ethel Lee Shelley, an African American family, purchased a home in St. Louis, Missouri, unaware that the property was subject to a 1911 restrictive covenant signed by neighborhood owners prohibiting sale to “people of the Negro or Mongolian Race.” Louis and Fern Kraemer, neighboring white homeowners, sought judicial enforcement of the covenant to prevent the Shelleys from occupying the property.
Issue
Does judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive private covenant by state courts constitute state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously held that while private racially restrictive covenants are not themselves unconstitutional, judicial enforcement of such covenants by state courts constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action that discriminates on the basis of race. When courts enforce private discriminatory agreements, the courts themselves become instruments of discrimination constituting state action — even where the underlying private agreement would be permissible absent enforcement.
Significance
Shelley v. Kraemer is a landmark in both constitutional law and property law. It ended judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants and significantly expanded the state action doctrine. It raises fundamental questions about the boundary between private autonomy and constitutional constraints, and about the role property law played in enforcing racial segregation in American housing.