Shelley v. Kraemer and racial/social stigmas

This entry provides a response to the United States Supreme Court decision of Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948. A case that was held separate from Plessy v. Ferguson, as what I see as a technicality of the judicial system. As you read, ask yourself a question:
If you were an African American citizen in the times before the Civil Rights Act, would you want to be integrated with whites who held severe judgments and views towards you? Were restrictive covenants, Jim Crow Laws, and "separate but equal" decisions viewed differently by blacks? Were they an expression of the times?
It's easy to look back in history and become ashamed or embarassed of previous actions, and to view them as all backwards and wrong. But would you have acted differently in 1948?

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)

*Paper submitted for LAW389. Do not steal.

Due to restrictive covenants used and enforced at the time, the Shelley’s were unable to occupy a home they had purchased in a predominately white neighborhood, because they were African American. The state Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in favor of Kraemer, after which the case was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court. The USSC ruled in favor of the Shelley’s, but not for the reasons one would think.

            The 14^th Amendment provides that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S….’ nor can any state deprive any person equal protection of the laws. The thing that struck me as the heart of this issue is the fact that the covenant, at the time, would have been perfectly valid, if Kraemer didn’t sue the Shelley’s. What invalidated the restrictive covenant was the fact the State Supreme Court of Missouri ruled on the issue.

            A covenant represents a private agreement, between private individuals, related to private property. Something similar can be seen in Plessy V. Ferguson, in which the USSC could not negate a racist train-car law calling for the separation of peoples based on race. The reason why the Court couldn’t rule in favor of Plessy was due to the fact that the issue at hand was a private one that could not be controlled by the federal or state governments. African Americans at the time were granted political “equality”, however, they received little social equality due to these covenants and Jim Crow-esque laws.

            This case, however, struck a different chord. The United States Supreme Court was able to rule on this case in favor of the Shelley’s because the State Supreme Court of Missouri did not have authority to rule on the case provided to it at the time. By ruling in favor of the Kraemer’s, the state court turned a private agreement amongst individuals into a state issue, which they did not have the authority to do. Had the state court not given an opinion on the issue, restrictive covenants might have remained valid (in practice) for a longer period of time.

            In Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), the court stated that the inhibition of the constitutional provisions in question did not apply, because the restrictive covenants were not an action of the state or federal government. They were simply agreements between private property owners and lessees or purchasers. The main difference between Buckley and Kraemer, is the fact that the Buckley case was dismissed and no judicial enforcement or ruling was granted. In their opinion of Kraemer, the court states that if the covenants were imposed by state statute or local ordinance, they would be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.

            Essentially the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to abridge the rights and actions of private individuals, rather was implemented to bar the states from discrimination through laws and enactments. With that being said, standing alone, the restrictive covenant would have remained valid and the Shelley’s would have lost.

            The simple fact that the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled on the case, gave it the status it needed to become a part of state action. By ruling on and enforcing the covenant, a private contract between private individuals, the state of Missouri gave status and a constitutional basis for the Shelley’s to lean on in this particular case. By ruling in favor of Kraemer, the State of Missouri denied the Shelley’s rights guaranteed by the 14^th amendment.

            This case is important in my eyes because it made judicial officials a part of the state in which they rule. This gave the officials legitimacy (although in a backwards way), and held them responsible for the decisions they were making, in response to racial covenants and laws. Had the State Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the case, or ruled in a different manner, the case would have never reached the USSC for interpretation. This case both protects the private contracts of individuals from state regulation, and also prevents higher bodies of law from interpreting them to deny and abridge rights guaranteed to every American citizen, regardless of race.

            It almost seems that the Shelley’s won due to a technicality error made at the State level, however without this case, it is hard to tell what the outcome of restrictive covenants would have been like in the future.