Housing discrimination and the Supreme Court
Housing discrimination involves practices that unfairly restrict individuals' access to housing based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics. The Supreme Court of the United States has played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape surrounding housing discrimination. Landmark cases such as *Buchanan v. Warley* (1917) and *Shelley v. Kraemer* (1948) addressed racial segregation in housing, ultimately affirming that such discriminatory practices violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although restrictive covenants initially were upheld, the Court later ruled they could not be enforced by state or federal courts.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the Supreme Court further tackled private discrimination and zoning laws that indirectly excluded minorities. Cases like *Reitman v. Mulkey* (1967) and *Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.* (1968) expanded the interpretation of anti-discrimination provisions, reinforcing that both public and private acts of discrimination are prohibited. More recent rulings, such as the 2015 decision in *Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Community Project*, recognized the concept of disparate impact, marking a significant advancement in fair housing protections. Overall, the Supreme Court's evolving interpretations have been crucial in the ongoing fight against housing discrimination in the United States.
On this Page
Housing discrimination and the Supreme Court
Description: Attempt by government entities or private parties to bar the sale or rental of housing to members of minority groups.
Significance: The Supreme Court declared both public and private housing discrimination to be unconstitutional or illegal, although it allowed some practices that indirectly resulted in residential segregation. Its rulings did not, however, lead to significant integration in residential patterns.
The first type of housing discrimination addressed by the Supreme Court was attempts by cities and towns to establish separate residential areas for different races. In Buchanan v. Warley (1917), the Court struck down such policies as unconstitutional, holding that they violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by forcing property owners to sell or rent only to certain groups.
Housing discrimination persisted, however, through restrictive covenants (contractual agreements by property owners that they would never sell or rent property to non-Whites). In 1926, the Court let stand a lower court decision upholding their legality. Discrimination in this form continued undisturbed until the Court declared in Shelley v. Kraemer(1948) that these agreements denied minority groups their constitutional right to equal protection of the law. Although restrictive covenants were not forbidden, it was held that state and federal courts could no longer execute them. This decision was broadened in a 1953 ruling that monetary damages could not be sought when such contracts were breached. Therefore, although restrictive covenants remained a tool of private housing discrimination, they were no longer legally enforceable.
During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Court began to focus on private acts of discrimination. In Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), the Court ruled on an amendment to the California constitution that declared the state could not limit the right of citizens to discriminate in the sale or rental of their property. The amendment was struck down, as it was found to overly involve the state in such actions. A year later, the Court made a more sweeping decree, holding in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.(1968) that public and private acts of housing discrimination had been banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, even though that provision had never been enforced.
In 1968 Congress passed a fair housing act that clearly restricted private and public acts of housing discrimination. After its enactment, the Court’s role was increasingly to rule on cases involving more subtle attempts to exclude particular groups. For example, the refusal of cities and towns to approve the construction of low-income housing or apartments was challenged as indirect discrimination against minorities. However, in several cases in the 1970s, the most notable of which was Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977), the Court refused to limit such zoning restrictions, finding that acts that have the effect of excluding particular residents do not amount to proof of an intent to discriminate.
A major victory for fair housing came in 2015 when the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of The Inclusive Community Project in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Community Project. This ruling made discrimination with a disparate impact, meaning not intending to discriminate but does, unconstitutional. In 2017, the Court ruled in Bank of America v. City of Miami that cities had the right to sue financial corporations over Fair Housing Act violations should minorities be targeted.
Bibliography
Hall, Kermit L. Freedom and Equality: Discrimination and the Supreme Court. New York: Garland, 2000.
“Housing Discrimination: U.S. Supreme Court Cases.” FindLaw, 18 Aug. 2017, www.findlaw.com/civilrights/discrimination/housing-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.
Klarman, Michael J. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Rasmussen, R. Kent. Farewell to Jim Crow: The Rise and Fall of Segregation in America. New York: Facts On File, 1997.
Rosenberg, Gerald N. The Hollow Hope. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
“U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Fair Housing Disparate Impact Principle.” National Low Income Housing Commission, 29 June 2015, nlihc.org/resource/us-supreme-court-upholds-fair-housing-disparate-impact-principle. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.
Vose, Clement. Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.