--- title: "Shelley v. Kraemer" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/shelley-v-kraemer --- # Shelley v. Kraemer Shelley v. Kraemer held that judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court did not invalidate the covenants themselves as private agreements, it held that courts could not enforce them. The decision was a critical precursor to the civil rights movement and fundamentally changed American housing law. ## Citation 334 U.S. 1 (1948) ## Year 1948 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts In 1911, property owners in a St. Louis neighborhood entered into a restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale or occupancy of their properties by persons 'not of the Caucasian race.' In 1945, the Shelleys, an African American family, purchased a parcel subject to the covenant without knowledge of the restriction. Louis Kraemer and other white property owners in the neighborhood sued to enforce the covenant and prevent the Shelleys from taking possession. A companion case from Detroit involved similar facts. ## Procedural History The Missouri trial court refused to enforce the covenant, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed and ordered enforcement. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. ## Issue Whether judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants by state courts constitutes 'state action' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. ## Holding The Court held unanimously that while the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit private discrimination, the judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause. State courts may not enforce such covenants because doing so would make the state a participant in the discriminatory scheme. ## Reasoning Chief Justice Vinson, writing for the Court, reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against state-sponsored discrimination extends to all branches of state government, including the judiciary. While the restrictive covenants standing alone did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the amendment only reaches state action, judicial enforcement transformed private discrimination into state-sponsored discrimination. The Court examined prior cases holding that judicial action is state action and concluded that when a court orders specific performance of a discriminatory covenant, the state is directly participating in the denial of equal protection. Vinson emphasized that the rights at stake — to acquire, enjoy, own, and dispose of property — are among those that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect. ## Impact Shelley v. Kraemer effectively ended the judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants, which had been widespread tools of residential segregation across the United States. The case's state action doctrine has had far-reaching implications beyond property law, influencing civil rights jurisprudence generally. However, scholars have debated whether Shelley's broad state action rationale could logically apply to all private contracts, a concern the Court has addressed by limiting Shelley to its specific context. ## Key Quotes - We hold that in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws. - These are cases in which the States have made available to such individuals the full coercive power of government to deny to petitioners, on the grounds of race or color, the enjoyment of property rights. - The Fourteenth Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. ## Related Cases - village-of-euclid-v-ambler-realty - kelo-v-city-of-new-london - tulk-v-moxhay - neponsit-property-owners-v-emigrant-bank - nahrstedt-v-lakeside-village ## Exam Relevance Shelley appears on Property exams in questions about racially restrictive covenants, the state action doctrine, and the enforceability of servitudes. Students should understand the distinction between the validity of a private covenant and its enforceability, and be prepared to discuss the theoretical limits of Shelley's state action rationale. ## Study Tips - Focus on the distinction between private covenants (permissible) and judicial enforcement of discriminatory covenants (state action, impermissible). - Understand the state action doctrine and its limits — Shelley does not mean all private discrimination becomes state action when a court gets involved. - Connect Shelley to the Fair Housing Act (1968), which later directly prohibited discriminatory covenants. - Be prepared to discuss the logical implications of treating judicial enforcement as state action and why courts have limited Shelley's reach. ## Doctrine Established Judicial Enforcement as State Action --- Source: [Shelley v. Kraemer — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/shelley-v-kraemer)