Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 1–2, 1968 Decided June 17, 1968 |
|
| Full case name | Joseph Lee Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. et al. |
| Citations | 392 U.S. 409 (more)
88 S. Ct. 2186; 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2980; 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 9832; 47 Ohio Op. 2d 43
|
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| The 13th amendment allows Congress to regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination, as such racial discrimination is a badge of slavery. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by White |
| Laws applied | |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1982 | |
|
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
|
| Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906), & Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) (in part) | |
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. was a very important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1968. This case was about whether people could be stopped from buying or renting homes because of their race. The Supreme Court decided that no one, not even private companies or individuals, could discriminate based on race when selling or renting property.
Contents
What was Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. about?
This case started when Joseph Lee Jones, an African American man, tried to buy a home in a community in Missouri. The Alfred H. Mayer Co. was the company that developed the community. They refused to sell a home to Mr. Jones because he was Black.
Mr. Jones believed this was unfair and against the law. He argued that this refusal was a form of racial discrimination. He took his case to court, saying his rights were violated.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866
The main law involved in this case was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This law was passed a long time ago, right after the American Civil War. It was meant to protect the rights of newly freed slaves.
One part of this act, now known as 42 U.S.C. § 1982, says that all citizens have the same right to buy, sell, and own property. This means no one should be treated differently because of their race when it comes to property.
Why was this law important?
For many years, courts had different ideas about this 1866 law. Some thought it only stopped governments from discriminating. Others thought it didn't apply to private businesses or individuals. This case helped to clear up that confusion.
The Thirteenth Amendment's Role
The Supreme Court looked at the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment was passed in 1865 and officially ended slavery in the United States.
The Thirteenth Amendment also gave Congress the power to pass laws to enforce its rules. The Court decided that racial discrimination in housing was like a "badge" or "incident" of slavery. It was a way of keeping people down because of their race.
How the Thirteenth Amendment helped
Because racial discrimination in housing was seen as a leftover from slavery, Congress had the power to stop it. This meant the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which banned such discrimination, was a valid law. It could be used to stop both government and private discrimination.
The Supreme Court's Decision
On June 17, 1968, the Supreme Court made its big decision. They ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 truly meant to stop all racial discrimination in housing. This included discrimination by private companies like Alfred H. Mayer Co.
The Court said that Congress had the power to make this law because of the Thirteenth Amendment. This was a very important ruling because it meant that racial discrimination in housing was illegal everywhere in the U.S., whether it was done by the government or by private individuals.
Why this decision mattered
This decision was a major victory for civil rights. It helped ensure that people of all races could buy or rent homes without facing unfair treatment. It strengthened the idea that everyone should have equal opportunities, especially when it comes to basic needs like housing.
