请输入您要查询的百科知识:

 

词条 Buchanan v. Warley
释义

  1. Background

  2. Decision

  3. See also

  4. References

  5. Further reading

  6. External links

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Buchanan v. Warley
| ArgueDate =
| ArgueDateA = April 10
| ArgueDateB = 11
| ArgueYear = 1916
| ReargueDate = April 27
| ReargueYear = 1917
| DecideDate = November 5
| DecideYear = 1917
| FullName = Buchanan v. Warley
| USVol = 245
| USPage = 60
| ParallelCitations = 38 S. Ct. 16; 62 L. Ed. 149; 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1788
| Docket =
| OralArgument =
| OralReargument =
| OpinionAnnouncement =
| Prior =
| Subsequent =
| Holding = Bans on the sale of real estate to black people violate freedom of contract as protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed.
| SCOTUS = 1916-1921
| Majority = Day
| JoinMajority = unanimous
| LawsApplied =U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1916), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States addressed civil government-instituted racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held unanimously that a Louisville, Kentucky city ordinance prohibiting the sale of real property to blacks in white-majority neighborhoods or buildings and vice versa violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protections for freedom of contract. The ruling of the Kentucky Court of Appeals was thus reversed.

Prior state court rulings had overturned racial zoning ordinances on grounds of the "takings clause" because of their failures to grandfather land that had been owned prior to enactment. The Court, in Buchanan, ruled that the motive for the Louisville ordinance, separation of races for purported reasons, was an inappropriate exercise of police power, and its insufficient purpose also made it unconstitutional.[1]

Background

The city of Louisville had an ordinance that forbade any black individuals to own or occupy any buildings in an area in which a greater number of white persons resided and vice versa. In 1915, William Warley, the prospective black buyer and an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), made an offer to Charles H. Buchanan for his property in a predominately white neighborhood.[2]

He based his offer on the following condition:

It is understood that I am purchasing the above property for the purpose of having erected thereon a house which I propose to make my residence, and it is a distinct part of this agreement that I shall not be required to accept a deed to the above property or to pay for said property unless I have the right under the laws of the State of Kentucky and the City of Louisville to occupy said property as a residence.[3]

Buchanan accepted the offer. When Warley did not complete the transaction, Buchanan brought an action in the Chancery Court of Louisville to force him to complete the purchase. Warley argued that Louisville's ordinance prevented him from occupying the property. Buchanan sued on the grounds that the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Buchanan:

"The effect of the ordinance under consideration was not merely to regulate a business or the like, but was to destroy the right of the individual to acquire, enjoy, and dispose of his property. Being of this character, it was void as being opposed to the due process clause of the constitution."[3] Reversing the Appeals Court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance surpassed the legitimate grounds of police power, as it interfered with individuals' rights of property. In addition, the court noted that the ordinance neither regulated the race of servants who might be employed in certain areas nor counted them as members of the household.[4]

Justice Holmes wrote a draft opinion which suggested the case was "manufactured" by the seller and buyer. He withdrew the dissent and voted with the majority.[5]

See also

  • Civil rights movement (1896–1954)
  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 245

References

1. ^{{cite book |chapter=The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities |title=Urban Planning & the African American Community: In the Shadows |last=Silver |first=Christopher |authorlink= |year=1997 |editor=Thomas, J. M. |editor2=Ritzdorf, M. |publisher=SAGE Publ. |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |isbn=0-8039-7233-4 |pages= }}
2. ^{{cite journal|author=Power, Garrett|title=Apartheid Baltimore Style: the Residential Segregation Ordinances of 1910–1913|journal=Maryland Law Review|volume=42|issue=2|url=http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2498&context=mlr|year=1983|pages=289–329}}
3. ^{{cite web|title=Buchanan v. Warley|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/60/case.html|website=Justia|publisher=U.S. Supreme Court|accessdate=22 November 2015}}
4. ^{{Cite web|url = https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/245/60|title = Buchanan v. Warley|date = |accessdate = November 22, 2015|website = Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute|publisher = Cornell University Law School|last = |first = }}
5. ^{{cite book|title=Constitutional Law: Cases in Context, Second Edition, 2017 Supplement|date=2017|last1=Barnett|first1=Randy E.|last2=Blackman|first2=Josh|publisher=Wolters Kluwer Law & Business}}

Further reading

  • Bernstein, David E. Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. Chapter 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. {{ISBN|0-226-04353-3}}
  • {{cite web|author=Capps, Kriston|title=Breaking 'the Backbone of Segregation'|publisher=CityLab|date=November 5, 2017|accessdate=May 1, 2018|url=https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/breaking-the-backbone-of-segregation/544913/}}
  • {{cite journal | last = Nelson | first = Arthur C. | authorlink = |author2=Dawkins, Casey J. |author3=Sanchez, Thomas W. | year = 2004 | title = Urban Containment and Residential Segregation: A Preliminary Investigation | journal = Urban Studies | volume = 41 | issue = 2 | pages = 423–439 | doi = 10.1080/0042098032000165325 | url = | accessdate = | quote = }}
  • {{cite journal | last = Rice | first = Roger L. | authorlink = | year = 1968 | title = Residential Segregation by Law, 1910-1917 | journal = Journal of Southern History | volume = 34 | issue = 2 | pages = 179–199 | doi = 10.2307/2204656| quote = | publisher = The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 34, No. 2 | jstor = 2204656 }}

External links

  • {{wikisource-inline|Buchanan v. Warley}}
  • {{caselaw source

| case=Buchanan v. Warley, {{Ussc|245|60|1917|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/99012/buchanan-v-warley/
| findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/245/60.html
| justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/60/
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep245/usrep245060/usrep245060.pdf
}}{{Civil rights movement|state=collapsed}}{{US14thAmendment}}

5 : United States equal protection case law|1917 in United States case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the White Court|History of Louisville, Kentucky

随便看

 

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

 

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间:2024/9/27 19:14:44