#48 · 2026-09-23 · Case
Shelley v. Kraemer
Answer: Shelley v. Kraemer (U.S. 1948). The Court held that racially restrictive covenants are private agreements, but when state courts enforce them, that enforcement is state action denying Equal Protection. The case consolidated disputes from Missouri and Michigan and distinguishes private adherence from unconstitutional judicial enforcement.
Rule to remember
Shelley v. Kraemer (334 U.S. 1 (1948)) holds that judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants is state action that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; the covenants themselves, as private agreements, are not per se unconstitutional absent state enforcement.
Key elements and checks
- Equal Protection binds state action, not purely private conduct.
- State judicial enforcement of private agreements counts as state action.
- Racially restrictive covenants standing alone are not invalid under the Constitution; their court enforcement is.
- The decision consolidated Missouri and Michigan cases and distinguished Corrigan v. Buckley.
- Remedy: state courts may not issue orders that enforce race-based occupancy/title restrictions.
- Note variation: States govern covenants under property law and many have broader fair-housing statutes; but no State may enforce racial covenants after this case.
In the source’s words
“the action of the States to which the Amendment has reference, includes action of state courts and state judicial officials.”
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) — LII Supreme Court (opinion)
“Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.”
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) — LII Supreme Court (opinion)
State property law on covenants varies, and state fair-housing laws often reach private conduct beyond the federal Constitution. Nonetheless, under Shelley v. Kraemer, state courts cannot enforce racially restrictive covenants anywhere in the United States.