Fair Housing Act Passes After MLK Assassination Overcomes National Association of Real Estate Boards Decades of Opposition

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) into law one week after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, or sex. The legislation passes only after King’s murder and resulting nationwide riots shock Congress into action, overcoming decades of fierce opposition from the real estate industry.

The National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB, later National Association of Realtors - NAR) actively fights passage of the Fair Housing Act using its considerable political lobbying power. NAR representative later acknowledges: “For many years our industry was opposed to fair housing.” The organization’s resistance stems from multiple factors: historic racial prejudice, the belief that property values remain more stable when neighborhoods are occupied by the same racial and social classes, and the argument that property owners should be free to refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason—even based on race.

The real estate industry’s discriminatory practices have deep institutional roots. In 1924, the National Association of Real Estate Brokers adopts an article in its code of ethics stating that “a Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood… members of any race or nationality… whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in that neighborhood.” This clause remains in effect until 1950. Shortly after the Supreme Court’s Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) decision striking down racially restrictive covenants, a NAREB leader expresses doubt whether the ruling would “mitigate in any way against the efficacy of Article 34.”

Even after removing the explicit racial language in 1950, the real estate industry continues systematic discrimination through informal practices, steering, redlining, and blockbusting. Real estate agents direct white homebuyers away from integrated or minority neighborhoods while directing minority buyers away from white neighborhoods. Banks refuse mortgages in Black neighborhoods or charge higher interest rates. The Federal Housing Administration’s underwriting manuals explicitly recommend racial segregation to protect property values well into the 1960s.

A proposed “Civil Rights Act of 1966” collapses completely because of its fair housing provision, demonstrating the political power of real estate industry opposition. The 1968 bill faces similar obstacles. Most Northern and Southern senators oppose the legislation, as does NAR. The House Rules Committee, dominated by Southern Democrats, blocks the bill from reaching the floor for a vote.

Prospects for passage seem bleak when the House adjourns on the afternoon of Thursday, April 4, 1968. Hours later, Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. The nation’s mood changes dramatically as riots break out in Black neighborhoods in cities throughout the country. Some 21 House Republicans immediately break party ranks and urge passage of the Senate bill. However, Southern Democrats on the Rules Committee remain steadfast in their opposition.

On April 10, with National Guard troops quartered in the Capitol basement to guard against violence from riots in adjacent Black neighborhoods, the bill finally passes. President Johnson signs it into law the next day. As one historian notes: “In the end, it took a martyr’s blood finally to outlaw discrimination in housing.” The assassination provides the political catalyst that decades of advocacy, litigation, and legislative efforts could not achieve.

NAR’s lobbying position is summarized by one representative: “The opposition coming from our industry was you’re forcing us to sell to people we don’t want to sell to.” This frank admission reveals the core of real estate industry resistance: the desire to maintain the right to discriminate based on race in pursuit of profit and preservation of segregated neighborhoods.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing sales, rentals, and financing, and creates mechanisms for enforcement through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and federal courts. However, enforcement proves difficult. The Act initially lacks strong enforcement mechanisms, relying primarily on individual complaints and voluntary compliance. The real estate industry develops subtle discrimination tactics that are harder to prove in court.

Residential segregation persists for decades after the Act’s passage despite its legal prohibitions. Real estate agents continue steering practices. Lenders engage in differential treatment that maintains segregated lending patterns. Landlords use pretextual reasons to reject minority applicants. The law changes what can be done openly but does not eliminate discriminatory intent or practices.

The real estate industry’s decades-long opposition to fair housing demonstrates how economic interests in racial segregation can successfully delay civil rights legislation even when moral and constitutional arguments overwhelmingly favor change. The requirement for a national tragedy (King’s assassination) and civil disorder (riots) to overcome industry lobbying shows the political power of organized economic interests to obstruct social progress.

The 1968 Fair Housing Act represents the last major piece of 1960s civil rights legislation. Its passage through tragedy rather than democratic deliberation highlights the limits of legislative remedies for structural racism when powerful economic interests benefit from discrimination. The weak enforcement mechanisms reflect the political compromises necessary to overcome real estate industry opposition even in the immediate aftermath of King’s murder.