may 3, 1948 - Shelley v. Kraemer

Description:

OVERVIEW:
Shelley v. Kraemer is a case dealing with restrictive covenants placed in white-only neighborhoods and how these covenants violated the equal protection clause under the fourteenth amendment. It was common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants in St. Louis, Missouri during the 1940s. There was a rapid increase in black residents at St. Louis throughout these times. The Shelley’s, a black family, bought a home in an only-white residential area that was covered by restrictive covenants. This agreement was first established in 1911, but only was signed by 30 of 39 residents that lived in Labadie Ave. The restriction was set to only for “Negro and Mongolian” race.
When the Shelly’s bought their home, they were not aware of such covenant. That’s when the other party, Kramer’s, sued in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri. This court stated that since the owners had not previously signed the agreement, they were not allowed to enforce it. The case was then appealed to Supreme Court of the State of Missouri and was heard as a “en banc”, something that was primarily done for important cases. Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and held the agreement effective, granting the petitioners. Case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and reversed both courts stating that common law policy in each state, Michigan and Missouri, does not exclude it from the 14th amendment. Just because there is a pattern of discrimination that is accepted by the state, it does not mean it is constitutional. Racially restrictive covenants are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment, not because of the existence of the covenant but because of the enforcement that courts oversee.


BIOGRAPHY:
Thurgood Marshall- Thurgood Marshall was born on July 2, 1908 in Baltimore, Maryland.
He left a great mark on the American judicial system. During the time serving in the justice system, racial discrimination was seen in most of America which inhibited total freedom for Black Americans. However, Mr. Marshall left a historical mark in advocating and bringing justice for Black American’s equal rights. He was the first African American justice,
Thurgood Marshall was known for standing up for civil rights and won 29 of 32 civil rights cases that he took to the Supreme Court. Marshall was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson as associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, which became effective as of October 2, 1967. Due to illness, Thurgood Marshall left the Supreme Court in 1991 at the age of 82 years of age, then passing in 1993 at the age of eighty-four.

George L. Vaughn-most influential member to the Shelley vs. Kraemer case as he was the lawyer who represented Shelley and fought through until the case was resolved and given justice to. George L. Vaughn grew up in Kentucky then resided in Tennessee where he earned his law degree. He served the army in World War I, then worked as an attorney in St. Louis, Missouri. An association of African Americans real estate brokers hired Vaughn to represent Shelley. Vaughn fought the U.S. Supreme Court and requested an appeal when the Missouri Supreme Court held the restrictive covenant prohibiting that African Americans obtain property parcels. When the appeal was granted, Vaughn defended his case by speaking about how the restrictive covenants violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment off.

FIRAC:
Facts: In 1945 the Shelleys, an African American family, bought a home under a private residential restrictive covenant in St. Louis Missouri. This residential restrictive covenant was in effect since 1911 and restricted the owning or leasing of a property in the neighborhood to “Negroes and Mongolian” race. The Kreamers sued the Shelleys to enforce the covenant, along with another case in Michigan. Both were taken up to the United States Supreme Court.
Issue: Do private restrictive covenants violate the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment?
Holding: Unanimous decision for Shelley.
Rationale: Racially restrictive covenants are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment, not because of the existence of the covenant but because of the enforcement that courts oversee.


RELATED CASES:
Corrigan v. Buckley
Year: 1926
District of Columbia
Homeowners under restrictive covenants were not allowed to sell their properties to any minority. One homeowner violated the agreement and was taken to court by a neighbor for doing so. Supreme court found that it did not violate their 14th amendment right under equal protection clause because such agreement was not done under governmental entities but rather homeowners. An argument that was used for 20 more years after this case decision. At the time, court stated that homeowners had the right to “dispose”, sell or get into any agreement regarding their property.

Buchannan v. Warley
Year: 1917
Louisville, Kentucky
Minorities were protected under the equal protection clause from any municipal or state laws that prevented them to reside in any chosen neighborhood. Since state and municipalities were not permitted to create these restrictions anymore, private corporations started to create restrictive covenants like the ones in Shelley v. Kraemer.

HISTORY:
Neighborhoods placed under restrictive covenants only allowed Caucasian individuals to reside in it. Urban areas were rapidly developing during the 1940s due to the industrial job opportunity that St. Louis and many other cities offered. Higher crime rates and lack of medical access were prevalent among these communities. The rapid growth in population and the scarce resources in black neighborhoods led them to create ways for them to buy property in white only real-estate. Blacks would enter into an agreement with selected white individuals, so they can buy the property and then resell it to them. This would cause civil lawsuits, but many saw it as an opportunity to obtain a home and get out of the ghetto. According to Washington University Law Review, by 1946 there were 100 civil actions pending.

Articles:
Invisible Walls: An Examination of the Legal Strategy of the Restrictive Covenant Cases
by Leland B. Ware
Washington University Law Review
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2010&context=law_lawreview

Added to timeline:

Date:

Images:

YouTube: