--- title: "Hansberry v. Lee" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/hansberry-v-lee --- # Hansberry v. Lee Hansberry established the constitutional due process requirement for class action representation: absent class members are bound by a class judgment only if their interests were adequately represented in the prior action. The case set the foundational due process limits on class action preclusion that later informed Rule 23. ## Citation 311 U.S. 32 (1940) ## Year 1940 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts A restrictive covenant in a Chicago neighborhood required that 95 percent of the property owners sign the covenant before it became effective. In Burke v. Kleiman, a prior class action, the Illinois courts had upheld the covenant's validity, finding that the 95 percent threshold had been met. However, the finding was fraudulent — the threshold had never actually been reached. Carl Hansberry, an African American man whose family is the basis for Lorraine Hansberry's play 'A Raisin in the Sun,' purchased property in the restricted area. Anna Lee and others sued to enforce the covenant, arguing that the prior class judgment in Burke v. Kleiman was binding on Hansberry as a member of the class. ## Procedural History The Illinois trial court ruled in favor of Lee, enforcing the covenant. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hansberry was bound by the prior class judgment in Burke v. Kleiman. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. ## Issue Whether a judgment in a prior class action suit, in which the interests of the absent class members were not adequately represented, can constitutionally bind those absent members under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ## Holding The Supreme Court held that the prior class judgment could not bind Hansberry because his interests were not adequately represented in the earlier action. Due process requires that absent class members' interests be adequately represented before they can be bound by a class judgment. Because the parties in Burke v. Kleiman had interests opposed to those of Hansberry — they sought to enforce the covenant while Hansberry sought to invalidate it — there was no adequate representation. ## Reasoning Justice Stone's opinion recognized that class actions are an exception to the general rule that a judgment binds only parties to the litigation. This exception is constitutionally permissible only when the interests of the absent members are adequately represented by the named parties. Where the interests of those said to be represented are actually adverse to the interests of the representative parties, due process is not satisfied. In this case, the parties in Burke v. Kleiman sought to enforce the restrictive covenant, while Hansberry sought to challenge it. Their interests were fundamentally opposed, making adequate representation impossible. ## Impact Hansberry established the constitutional floor for class action practice: adequate representation is a due process requirement, not merely a procedural nicety. This principle was later codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which requires courts to ensure that class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The case also has profound historical significance as it involved the real-life family that inspired 'A Raisin in the Sun' and addressed the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants. ## Key Quotes - It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process. - Members of a class not present as parties to the litigation may be bound by the judgment where they are in fact adequately represented by parties who are present. - Where, as in this case, the interests of those who are said to have been represented are adverse to the interests of the so-called representative, the requirements of due process have not been satisfied. ## Related Cases - phillips-petroleum-v-shutts - wal-mart-v-dukes - parklane-hosiery-v-shore ## Exam Relevance Hansberry is commonly tested in class action and preclusion questions. Students may be asked to analyze whether a prior class judgment can bind absent members, focusing on the adequacy of representation requirement. The case also appears in questions about the due process foundations of Rule 23 and the preclusive effect of class action judgments. ## Study Tips - Focus on the constitutional principle: adequate representation is required by due process before absent class members can be bound. - Connect Hansberry to Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy of representation requirement and to Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts on due process protections for absent class members. - Know the historical context: this case involved racial housing covenants in 1940s Chicago and the family behind 'A Raisin in the Sun.' - Be prepared to analyze when interests are 'adverse' versus merely different — true adversity defeats adequate representation. ## Doctrine Established Adequate Representation Requirement for Class Action Preclusion --- Source: [Hansberry v. Lee — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/hansberry-v-lee)