Shelley v. Kraemer facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Shelley v. Kraemer |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 14, 1948 Decided May 3, 1948 |
|
| Full case name | Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux. McGhee et ux. v. Sipes et al. |
| Citations | 334 U.S. 1 (more)
68 S. Ct. 836; 92 L. Ed. 1161; 3 A.L.R.2d 441
|
| Prior history | Judgment for defendants; reversed, 198 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. 1947); certiorari granted. Judgment for plaintiffs; affirmed 25 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 614); certiorari granted. |
| Holding | |
| The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing restrictive covenants that would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property based on race or color. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Vinson, joined by Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Burton |
| Reed, Jackson and Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
|
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
|
| Corrigan v. Buckley (1926) | |
Shelley v. Kraemer was an important case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948. This decision made it illegal for courts to enforce rules that stopped people from buying or living in homes because of their race. These rules were called "racially restrictive housing covenants."
The case began when an African-American family bought a house in St. Louis. The house had a rule from 1911 that said "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" could not live there. A neighbor went to court to stop the family from owning the property. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decided that these rules could not be enforced by courts. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson wrote the main opinion. He explained that the Fourteenth Amendment protects everyone equally. Even if private people agreed to such rules, courts could not help enforce them. This is because a court's action counts as "state action," and the government cannot support discrimination.
Contents
Understanding the Case: What Happened?
In 1945, an African-American family named Shelley bought a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They did not know that the property had a special rule, called a restrictive covenant, from 1911. This rule said that "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" were not allowed to live there.
A neighbor, Louis Kraemer, who lived nearby, sued to stop the Shelleys from moving into their new home. The Supreme Court of Missouri first agreed with Kraemer. They said the rule was a private agreement and could be enforced against new owners.
A very similar situation happened in Detroit, Michigan. There, the McGhee family bought land with a similar rule. The Supreme Court of Michigan also said that rule could be enforced.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear both the Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v. Sipes cases together. They wanted to answer two main questions:
- Are rules based on race legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
- Can courts force people to follow these rules?
Who Represented the Families?
The Shelleys were represented by George L. Vaughn, a Black attorney. The McGhee family's lawyers were Thurgood Marshall and Loren Miller. Thurgood Marshall later became the first African-American Supreme Court Justice.
The U.S. government also got involved in the case. The U.S. Solicitor General is a lawyer who represents the government in Supreme Court cases. In this case, the Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, argued that the restrictive covenants were against the Constitution. This was the first time the U.S. government officially supported a civil rights case in this way.
The Supreme Court's Decision
On May 3, 1948, the Supreme Court made its decision. They ruled 6-0 in favor of the Shelleys. This meant the Shelleys could keep their home.
The Court said that private agreements like these rules were not illegal on their own. People could choose to follow them if they wanted. However, courts could not force people to follow them. When a court enforces such a rule, it becomes a "state action" (an action by the government). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says that the government cannot discriminate based on race.
The Court explained that if courts enforced these rules, it would deny people their property rights because of their race. This would mean they were not treated equally under the law. The Court stated that the government's power should not be used to stop people from enjoying their property rights on an equal basis.
Similar Cases in Other Areas
There were also similar cases called Hurd v. Hodge and Urciolo v. Hodge. These cases came from the District of Columbia. The Equal Protection Clause does not directly apply to U.S. territories that are not states. However, the Court decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the idea of equal treatment meant that these rules were also forbidden in the District of Columbia.
Shelley v. Kraemer in Culture
The story of Shelley v. Kraemer has been shared in books and films. In 2010, Jeffrey S. Copeland wrote a book called Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes Behind Shelley v. Kraemer. This book tells the true story of the events leading up to the case.
In 2017, a documentary film was made about the case, titled The Story of Shelley v. Kraemer. The film was written by Copeland. It has been shown at the Missouri History Museum in St. Louis. The film was also considered for the Sundance Film Festival.
