Contents 1 Facts 2 Decision 3 Background 4 Solicitor General's brief 5 Literary Responses 6 See also 7 References 8 Sources 9 External links


Facts[edit] In 1945, an African-American family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to prevent the Shelleys from gaining possession of the property. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the purchasers because the covenant was a purely-private agreement between its original parties. As such, it "ran with the land" and was enforceable against subsequent owners. Moreover, since it ran in favor of an estate rather than merely a person, it could be enforced against a third party. A materially-similar scenario occurred in the companion case McGhee v. Sipes from Detroit, Michigan, where the McGhees purchased land that was subject to a similar restrictive covenant. The Supreme Court consolidated both cases for oral arguments and considered two questions: Are racially based restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Can they be enforced by a court of law?


Decision[edit] The Supreme Court held "that the [racially] restrictive agreements, standing alone, cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment."[2] Private parties may abide by the terms of such a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, as that would be a state action. Such state action would be discriminatory so the enforcement of a racially-based restrictive covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected the argument that since state courts would enforce a restrictive covenant against white people, judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants would not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court noted that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individual rights, and that equal protection of the law is not achieved by the imposition of inequalities: We have no doubt that there has been state action in these cases in the full and complete sense of the phrase. The undisputed facts disclose that petitioners were willing purchasers of properties upon which they desired to establish homes. The owners of the properties were willing sellers, and contracts of sale were accordingly consummated. It is clear that, but for the active intervention of the state courts, supported by the full panoply of state power, petitioners would have been free to occupy the properties in question without restraint. These are not cases, as has been suggested, in which the States have merely abstained from action, leaving private individuals free to impose such discriminations as they see fit. Rather, 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 in premises which petitioners are willing and financially able to acquire and which the grantors are willing to sell. The difference between judicial enforcement and nonenforcement of the restrictive covenants is the difference to petitioners between being denied rights of property available to other members of the community and being accorded full enjoyment of those rights on an equal footing.


Background[edit] George L. Vaughn was a black attorney who represented J.D. Shelley at the Supreme Court of the United States. The attorneys who argued the case for the McGhees were Thurgood Marshall and Loren Miller. The United States Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, who argued in this case that the restrictive covenants were unconstitutional, had previously in 1925 as the city solicitor of Baltimore acted to support the city government's segregation efforts.[3] Hurd v. Hodge and Urciolo v. Hodge[4] were companion cases from the District of Columbia. The Equal Protection Clause does not explicitly apply to a US territory not in a U.S. state, but the Court found that both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and treating persons in the District of Columbia like those in the states forbade restrictive covenants.


Solicitor General's brief[edit] The Solicitor General's brief filed on behalf of the United States government was written by four Jewish lawyers: Philip Elman, Oscar H. Davis, Hilbert P. Zarky, and Stanley M. Silverberg. However, the Solicitor General’s office chose to omit their names from the brief. Deputy Solicitor General Arnold Raum, who was also Jewish, stated that it was "bad enough that [Solicitor General Philip] Perlman’s name has to be there, to have one Jew’s name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out."[5]


Literary Responses[edit] In 2010, Jeffrey S. Copeland published Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes Behind Shelley v. Kraemer,[6] a literary nonfiction account of events leading up to the Shelley v. Kraemer case. In 2017, a documentary film was made titled "The Story of Shelley v. Kraemer." The script for the film was written by Copeland, and it was produced by Joe Marchesani and Laney Kraus-Taddeo of the Audio/Video Production Services division of Educational Technology and Media Services at the University of Northern Iowa (Cedar Falls, Iowa).[7] The film has been a featured part of the exhibit titled "#1 in Civil Rights: The African American Freedom Struggle in St. Louis,"[8] at the Missouri History Museum in St. Louis, Missouri. The film was also nominated for the Sundance Film Festival.


See also[edit] List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 334 Shelley House (St. Louis, Missouri), National Historic Landmark Noble v. Alley, a similar case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1951. US labor law


References[edit] ^ "Shelley House". We Shall Overcome: Historic Places of the Civil Rights Movement. National Park Service. Retrieved June 11, 2013.  ^ Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). ^ Mitchell, Juanita Jackson (2004). "Meade v. Dennistone: The NAACP's Test Case to "... Sue Jim Crow Out of Maryland with the Fourteenth Amendment". Maryland Law Review. Baltimore, Maryland: University of Maryland School of Law. 63: 807.  ^ 334 U.S. 24 ^ Elman, Philip; Silber, Norman (1987). "The Solicitor General's Office, Justice Frankfurter, and Civil Rights Litigation, 1946–1960: An Oral History". Harvard Law Review. 100 (4): 817–852 [p. 819]. doi:10.2307/1341096. JSTOR 1341096.  As quoted in Waxman, Seth. "Twins at Birth: Civil Rights and the Role of the Solicitor General". Indiana Law Journal. 75: 1297, 1306 n. 53.  ^ Copeland, Jeffrey S. (2010) Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes Behind Shelley v. Kraemer. Paragon House. ^ Parker, Melody. "Docu-drama: UNI Prof Makes Film About Landmark Civil Rights Case." Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier. (1 April 2017). ^ Russell, Stefene. "At the Missouri History Museum, '#1 in Civil Rights' Corrects the Record." Missouri History Museum Newsletter. (20 July 2017).


Sources[edit] Darden, Joe T. (1995). "Black Residential Segregation Since the 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer Decision". Journal of Black Studies. 25 (6): 680–691. doi:10.1177/002193479502500603.  Gilmore, Brian (March 11, 2009). "Not in My Backyard". The Root.  Henkin, Louis (1962). "Shelley v. Kraemer: Notes for a Revised Opinion". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 110 (4): 473–505. doi:10.2307/3310675. JSTOR 3310675.  Higginbotham, A. Leon (1989). "Race, sex, education and Missouri jurisprudence: Shelley v. Kraemer in a historical perspective". Washington University Law Quarterly. 67: 673–708. ISSN 0043-0862. 


External links[edit] Works related to Shelley v. Kraemer at Wikisource "Orsel McGhee House," A Michigan State Historic Site. Detroit: The History and Future of the Motor City Website Accessed 26 March 2014 v t e United States Fourteenth Amendment case law Citizenship Clause Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Elk v. Wilkins (1884) United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Perez v. Brownell (1958) Saenz v. Roe (1964) Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) Rogers v. Bellei (1971) Due Process Clause Economic substantive due process Mugler v. Kansas (1887) Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) Lochner v. New York (1905) Coppage v. Kansas (1915) Adams v. Tanner (1917) Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) Right to privacy Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Doe v. Bolton (1973) Roe v. Wade (1973) Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) Right to abortion United States v. Vuitch (1971) Doe v. Bolton (1973) Roe v. Wade (1973) H. L. v. Matheson (1981) City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (2006) Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) Civil rights liability under Section 1983 Monroe v. Pape (1961) McNeese v. Board of Educ. (1963) Pierson v. Ray (1967) Jenkins v. McKeithen (1969) Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974) Wood v. Strickland (1975) O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975) Paul v. Davis (1976) Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978) Procunier v. Navarette (1978) Owen v. City of Independence (1980) Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) Felder v. Casey (1988) Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989) Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002) Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003) City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009) Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010) Connick v. Thompson (2011) Other Holden v. Hardy (1898) Muller v. Oregon (1908) Buck v. Bell (1927) Powell v. Alabama (1932) West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) NAACP v. Alabama (1958) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Loving v. Virginia (1967) Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) In re Winship (1971) Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Troxel v. Granville (2000) Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Equal Protection Clause United States v. Cruikshank (1876) Pace v. Alabama (1883) Civil Rights Cases (1883) Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Buchanan v. Warley (1917) Lum v. Rice (1927) Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) Perez v. Sharp (1948) Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. (1948) Sweatt v. Painter (1950) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Hernandez v. Texas (1954) Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964) Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966) Loving v. Virginia (1967) Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson (1971) Reed v. Reed (1971) Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) Craig v. Boren (1976) Milliken v. Bradley (1974) Plyler v. Doe (1982) Romer v. Evans (1996) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelley_v._Kraemer&oldid=825844517" Categories: United States equal protection case lawUnited States Supreme Court casesUnited States land use case lawLegal history of Missouri20th century American trials1948 in United States case law1948 in MissouriAmerican Civil Liberties Union litigationHousing rights activismAfrican-American history between emancipation and the Civil Rights MovementUnited States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson CourtAfrican-American civil rights movement (1954–68)


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages Add links This page was last edited on 15 February 2018, at 19:20. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.252","walltime":"0.299","ppvisitednodes":{"value":2009,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":76856,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":8985,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":11,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":3,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 242.628 1 -total"," 38.56% 93.569 1 Template:SCOTUSCase"," 32.63% 79.174 1 Template:Infobox"," 29.92% 72.605 1 Template:Reflist"," 15.62% 37.907 1 Template:Cite_web"," 15.58% 37.800 1 Template:US14thAmendment"," 14.51% 35.213 1 Template:Navbox_with_collapsible_groups"," 12.80% 31.050 6 Template:Cite_journal"," 6.57% 15.952 1 Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case/courts"," 2.53% 6.131 1 Template:Wikisource-inline"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.100","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3599346,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1242","timestamp":"20180218090051","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":69,"wgHostname":"mw1325"});});


Shelley_v._Kraemer - Photos and All Basic Informations

Shelley_v._Kraemer More Links

Supreme Court Of The United StatesUnited States ReportsList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334List Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334United States ReportsFred M. VinsonHugo BlackStanley Forman ReedFelix FrankfurterWilliam O. DouglasFrank MurphyRobert H. JacksonWiley Blount RutledgeHarold Hitz BurtonFourteenth Amendment To The United States ConstitutionList Of Landmark Court Decisions In The United StatesUnited States Supreme CourtState ActorEqual Protection ClauseShelley House (St. Louis, Missouri)St. Louis, MissouriMissouriRestrictive CovenantNegroMongoloidSupreme Court Of MissouriCompanion CaseDetroitMichiganFourteenth Amendment To The United States ConstitutionUnited States ConstitutionState ActorEqual Protection ClauseThurgood MarshallLoren Miller (judge)United States Solicitor GeneralPhilip PerlmanBaltimore, MarylandDistrict Of ColumbiaU.S. StateCivil Rights Act Of 1866Philip ElmanOscar Hirsh DavisHilbert Philip ZarkyStanley M. SilverbergArnold RaumPhilip PerlmanUniversity Of Northern IowaCedar Falls, IowaMissouri History MuseumSt. Louis, MissouriSundance Film FestivalList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334Shelley House (St. Louis, Missouri)National Historic LandmarkNoble V. AlleySupreme Court Of CanadaUS Labor LawNational Park ServiceList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334United States ReportsList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 334United States ReportsHarvard Law ReviewDigital Object IdentifierJSTORSeth WaxmanDigital Object IdentifierThe Root (magazine)Louis HenkinDigital Object IdentifierJSTORA. Leon Higginbotham, Jr.International Standard Serial NumberWikisource:Shelley V. KraemerList Of Michigan State Historic Sites In Wayne County, MichiganTemplate:US14thAmendmentTemplate Talk:US14thAmendmentFourteenth Amendment To The United States ConstitutionCitizenship ClauseSlaughter-House CasesElk V. WilkinsUnited States V. Wong Kim ArkPerez V. BrownellSaenz V. RoeAfroyim V. RuskRogers V. BelleiDue Process ClauseLochner EraMugler V. KansasAllgeyer V. LouisianaLochner V. New YorkCoppage V. KansasAdams V. TannerAdkins V. Children's HospitalPrivacy Laws Of The United StatesMeyer V. NebraskaPierce V. Society Of SistersGriswold V. ConnecticutDoe V. BoltonRoe V. WadeBowers V. HardwickWebster V. Reproductive Health ServicesPlanned Parenthood V. CaseyLawrence V. TexasWhole Woman's Health V. HellerstedtAbortion In The United StatesUnited States V. VuitchDoe V. BoltonRoe V. WadeH. L. V. MathesonCity Of Akron V. Akron Center For Reproductive HealthWebster V. Reproductive Health ServicesHodgson V. MinnesotaPlanned Parenthood V. CaseyStenberg V. CarhartAyotte V. Planned Parenthood Of New EnglandGonzales V. CarhartWhole Woman's Health V. HellerstedtSecond Enforcement Act Of 1871Monroe V. PapeO'Connor V. DonaldsonPaul V. DavisImbler V. PachtmanMonell V. Department Of Social Services Of The City Of New YorkOwen V. City Of IndependenceHarlow V. FitzgeraldFelder V. CaseyWill V. Michigan Department Of State PoliceGonzaga University V. DoeInyo County V. Paiute-Shoshone Indians Of The Bishop CommunityCity Of Rancho Palos Verdes V. AbramsFitzgerald V. Barnstable School CommitteeAshcroft V. IqbalLos Angeles County V. HumphriesConnick V. ThompsonHolden V. HardyMuller V. OregonBuck V. BellPowell V. AlabamaWest Coast Hotel V. ParrishNAACP V. AlabamaGriswold V. ConnecticutLoving V. VirginiaEpperson V. ArkansasIn Re WinshipEdwards V. AguillardTroxel V. GranvilleCaperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Co.Obergefell V. HodgesEqual Protection ClauseUnited States V. CruikshankPace V. AlabamaCivil Rights CasesYick Wo V. HopkinsPlessy V. FergusonBuchanan V. WarleyLum V. RiceSkinner V. OklahomaPerez V. SharpGoesaert V. ClearySipuel V. Board Of Regents Of Univ. Of Okla.Sweatt V. PainterMcLaurin V. Oklahoma State RegentsBrown V. Board Of EducationHernandez V. TexasGriffin V. County School Board Of Prince Edward CountyKatzenbach V. MorganLoving V. VirginiaSwann V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Of EducationGuey Heung Lee V. JohnsonReed V. ReedFrontiero V. RichardsonCraig V. BorenMilliken V. BradleyPlyler V. DoeRomer V. EvansGrutter V. BollingerParents Involved In Community Schools V. Seattle School District No. 1Obergefell V. HodgesHelp:CategoryCategory:United States Equal Protection Case LawCategory:United States Supreme Court CasesCategory:United States Land Use Case LawCategory:Legal History Of MissouriCategory:20th Century American TrialsCategory:1948 In United States Case LawCategory:1948 In MissouriCategory:American Civil Liberties Union LitigationCategory:Housing Rights ActivismCategory:African-American History Between Emancipation And The Civil Rights MovementCategory:United States Supreme Court Cases Of The Vinson CourtCategory:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)Discussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link