How Is Shelley V. Kraemer Restrictive Covenant?
Shelley v. Kraemer was a landmark case that abolished the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants. The issue began with the Shelley family purchasing a property in St. Louis that had a racially restrictive covenant in the deed. The white homeowner group belonging to the Marcus Avenue Improvement Association fought against this purchase because of the existence of a restrictive covenant. The covenant at issue here states that the property could not be “occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race.” (INVISIBLE WALLS, pp. 8)
Supreme Court of Missouri Decision
Kraemer, under the support of the association, filed for an injunction preventing Shelley from gaining access to the property because of the pre-existing restrictive covenant …show more content…
on the land. The Supreme court of Missouri held that enforcement of the covenant is valid since it is a private agreement formed between the original owners of the land. Therefore, the court also stated that the covenant “runs with the land” and can be enforced against successive owners with notice of the covenant. The Shelley did not have notice of a restrictive covenant prior to the purchase of the land however, the court ruled that filing of the agreement for record gave constructive notice of the restrictive covenant. (cited in Kraemer v Shelley Supreme Court Missouri 1947, pp. 3-4)
Issues
Shelley appealed to the Supreme court. The issue for consideration relates to the validity of States action in enforcing a private agreement. Subsequently, constitutional issues about the legality of racially restrictive covenants was also raised in the court. (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Opinion of the SCOTUS 1948, pp. 838; hereinafter Shelley v. Kraemer SCOTUS)
Petitioners and Respondents Arguments Shelley argues that the racially restrictive covenant denies an individual of their rights, privileges and immunities set forth by the 14th amendment. The Supreme court of Missouri decision and enforcement denied the individual of equal protection of law. Furthermore, argued that RRCs are void as against public policy (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Petioner's Brief SCOTUS, pp. 2-6). Kraemer argued racially restrictive was not contrary to Public policy.
It does not violate the 14th amendment right of individual and does not forbid state actions of enforcing RRCs. Kraemer states that Shelley have not been denied Property rights or civil rights rather, Shelley seeks to deprive Kraemer of property rights. Kraemer claims that Shelley’s right under 14th amendment was not deprived since the agreement was created by a “private party” (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Respondent's Brief SCOTUS, pp. 3-6)
ACLU amicus curiae brief American civil liberties union submitted an amicus brief that opposed the RRCs. ACLU argued similar to Shelly focusing mostly of states enforcement of RRCs and how RRCs go against the public policy of the country. They state that if enforcement of the RRC in the case is deemed as a state action, it violates the due process and Equal protection clause under 14th Amendment. ACLU further argues how RRCs overrides the public policy that condemns racial discrimination (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Amicus Brief ACLU SCOTUS, pp. 4-6, 27-29).
Supreme Court Decision The supreme court held that a State action to enforce a racially restrictive covenant violates the equal protection of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (Shelley v. Kraemer SCOTUS, pp.
847). Shelley v. Kraemer is significant since it is one of the very first cases that started to invalidate housing discrimination that was legally approved. Racially restrictive covenants were already under scrutiny and criticism and it was not long before they were completely abolished. It is an issue we fought and won against in the past that doesn’t directly affect the housing market or an individual right to purchase property in today's world. The bill proposed a extended solution to an issue we have addressed and solved therefore, amending the bill would only result in wasted time and wasted effort.
Supreme Court of Missouri Decision
Kraemer, under the support of the association, filed for an injunction preventing Shelley from gaining access to the property because of the pre-existing restrictive covenant …show more content…
on the land. The Supreme court of Missouri held that enforcement of the covenant is valid since it is a private agreement formed between the original owners of the land. Therefore, the court also stated that the covenant “runs with the land” and can be enforced against successive owners with notice of the covenant. The Shelley did not have notice of a restrictive covenant prior to the purchase of the land however, the court ruled that filing of the agreement for record gave constructive notice of the restrictive covenant. (cited in Kraemer v Shelley Supreme Court Missouri 1947, pp. 3-4)
Issues
Shelley appealed to the Supreme court. The issue for consideration relates to the validity of States action in enforcing a private agreement. Subsequently, constitutional issues about the legality of racially restrictive covenants was also raised in the court. (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Opinion of the SCOTUS 1948, pp. 838; hereinafter Shelley v. Kraemer SCOTUS)
Petitioners and Respondents Arguments Shelley argues that the racially restrictive covenant denies an individual of their rights, privileges and immunities set forth by the 14th amendment. The Supreme court of Missouri decision and enforcement denied the individual of equal protection of law. Furthermore, argued that RRCs are void as against public policy (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Petioner's Brief SCOTUS, pp. 2-6). Kraemer argued racially restrictive was not contrary to Public policy.
It does not violate the 14th amendment right of individual and does not forbid state actions of enforcing RRCs. Kraemer states that Shelley have not been denied Property rights or civil rights rather, Shelley seeks to deprive Kraemer of property rights. Kraemer claims that Shelley’s right under 14th amendment was not deprived since the agreement was created by a “private party” (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Respondent's Brief SCOTUS, pp. 3-6)
ACLU amicus curiae brief American civil liberties union submitted an amicus brief that opposed the RRCs. ACLU argued similar to Shelly focusing mostly of states enforcement of RRCs and how RRCs go against the public policy of the country. They state that if enforcement of the RRC in the case is deemed as a state action, it violates the due process and Equal protection clause under 14th Amendment. ACLU further argues how RRCs overrides the public policy that condemns racial discrimination (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Amicus Brief ACLU SCOTUS, pp. 4-6, 27-29).
Supreme Court Decision The supreme court held that a State action to enforce a racially restrictive covenant violates the equal protection of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (Shelley v. Kraemer SCOTUS, pp.
847). Shelley v. Kraemer is significant since it is one of the very first cases that started to invalidate housing discrimination that was legally approved. Racially restrictive covenants were already under scrutiny and criticism and it was not long before they were completely abolished. It is an issue we fought and won against in the past that doesn’t directly affect the housing market or an individual right to purchase property in today's world. The bill proposed a extended solution to an issue we have addressed and solved therefore, amending the bill would only result in wasted time and wasted effort.