Basically Law

Read the opinion here.

Issue.  Did states' courts violate the Equal Protection Clause when it enforced a restrictive covenant to permit the sale of a home to an African-American?

Background.  It was somewhat common for white homeowners to enter into restrictive covenants with one another whereby they agreed not to sell their homes to African-Americans.  Some white homeowners did sell to African-Americans and other white homeowners subject to the agreement sued to stop the sales.

The states' courts enjoined (prevented) the sale of the homes and the black purchasers sued and claimed legal enforcement of the restrictive covenant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court sided with the black homeowners.

Court's Analysis.  The Supreme Court noted that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to private individuals.  The courts could not force a white homeowner subject to a restrictive covenant to sell to a black person.  However, once a white homeowner does sell to an African-American and other white homeowners get involved, the analysis is different.

Once the states' courts become involved in preventing African-Americans from enjoying the right to purchase private property, the 14th Amendment is implicated.  As the Court recognized, "judicial action in each case bears the clear and unmistakable imprimatur of the State."  Further, judicial action is not immunized from the 14th Amendment just because the action is taken pursuant to common law policy.

Since the judicial enforcement of a restrictive covenant denied African-Americans the right to purchase property that they were willing and able to buy, such enforcement violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that such enforcement did not violate equal protection since the courts could deny a sale to white purchasers.  Since there had not been any case involving restrictive covenants targeting whites, the Court found that argument inapposite.