Reitman v. Mulkey
Reitman v. Mulkey is a significant United States Supreme Court case that addresses the intersection of property rights and racial discrimination in housing. In this 1967 decision, the Court examined a provision in the California state constitution that allowed individuals the discretion to rent or sell property without restrictions, effectively permitting racial discrimination in housing. The provision had been enacted through a public initiative that aimed to repeal existing laws against such discrimination. Justice Byron R. White, writing for the majority, ruled that the provision was unconstitutional, as it involved the state in facilitating private racial discrimination—an action deemed unacceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling reaffirmed the state's obligation to uphold anti-discriminatory practices in housing. The case was decided with a narrow 5-4 majority, highlighting divergent opinions among the justices regarding the balance between property rights and civil rights. The dissenting justices raised concerns about the implications of state involvement in private agreements. Overall, Reitman v. Mulkey remains a landmark case in the ongoing discourse on civil rights and housing equity in America.
Reitman v. Mulkey
Date: May 29, 1967
Citation: 387 U.S. 369
Issue: Housing discrimination
Significance: The Supreme Court found a housing provision in the California state constitution to be unconstitutional because it involved the state in private racial discrimination.
Justice Byron R. White, writing for a 5-4 majority, ruled unconstitutional a provision in the California state constitution that prohibited the state from denying people the absolute discretion to rent, lease, or sell their property to whomever they wished. The 1964 provision, the result of an initiative and referendum, repealed existing laws forbidding private racial discrimination and authorized housing discrimination. White found this would involve the state in private racial discrimination to an unacceptable degree. Because the California state supreme court had earlier found the provision in the state constitution to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Court here affirmed a decision from a state court. Justices John M. Harlan II, Hugo L. Black, Tom C. Clark, and Potter Stewart dissented.
