Supreme Court Rules Racially Restrictive Housing Covenants Unenforceable

The Supreme Court issues a unanimous 6-0 decision in Shelley v. Kraemer, holding that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot be judicially enforced without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arises when Louis Kraemer sues to prevent the Shelley family, who are Black, from occupying a St. Louis property subject to a 1911 restrictive covenant barring “people of the Negro or Mongolian Race.” Chief Justice Vinson writes that while private parties may abide by such covenants, they cannot seek judicial enforcement as that constitutes discriminatory state action.

The decision marks a groundbreaking expansion of what conduct constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning Corrigan v. Buckley (1926) which had stated racial covenants are private contracts and therefore legal. Three justices recuse themselves—Robert Jackson, Stanley Reed, and Wiley Rutledge—likely because they each own property subject to restrictive covenants, revealing how widespread such discriminatory practices have become even among the federal judiciary.

However, the ruling’s practical impact proves severely limited. While covenants become unenforceable in court, the decision does not prohibit their creation or voluntary compliance. Developers like William Levitt continue segregating their developments through unwritten policies and selective sales practices. Federal agencies including FHA continue subsidizing segregated housing developments and steering mortgage insurance away from integrated neighborhoods. The Fair Housing Act will not address racially restrictive covenants altogether until 1968, and covenant language remains embedded in property titles into the 21st century, requiring state-by-state legislative action for removal.