“Shelley v. Kraemer”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark^[1] United States Supreme Court case holding that the State-Action Doctrine includes the enforcement of private contracts, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits racially restrictive housing covenants, and that such covenants are unenforceable in court.

Facts

In 1945, an African-American family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant prevented "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to prevent the Shelleys from gaining possession of the property. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the purchasers because the covenant was a purely private agreement between its original parties. As such, it "ran with the land" and was enforceable against subsequent owners. Moreover, since it ran in favor of an estate rather than merely a person, it could be enforced against a third party. A materially similar scenario occurred in the companion case McGhee v. Sipes from Detroit, Michigan, where the McGhees purchased land that was subject to a similar restrictive covenant. In that case, the Supreme Court of Michigan also held the covenants enforceable. The Supreme Court consolidated both cases for oral arguments and considered two questions:

Decision

The Supreme Court held "that the [racially] restrictive agreements, standing alone, cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment."^[2] Private parties may abide by the terms of such a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, as that would be a state action. Because such state action would be discriminatory, the enforcement of a racially based restrictive covenant in a state court would therefor violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court rejected the argument that since state courts would enforce a restrictive covenant against white people, judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants would not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court noted that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individual rights, and that equal protection of the law is not achieved by the imposition of inequalities:

These are not cases, as has been suggested, in which the States have merely abstained from action, leaving private individuals free to impose such discriminations as they see fit. Rather, these are cases in which the States have made available to such individuals the full coercive power of government to deny to petitioners, on the grounds of race or color, the enjoyment of property rights in premises which petitioners are willing and financially able to acquire and which the grantors are willing to sell. The difference between judicial enforcement and nonenforcement of the restrictive covenants is the difference to petitioners between being denied rights of property available to other members of the community and being accorded full enjoyment of those rights on an equal footing.}}

Background

George L. Vaughn was a black attorney who represented J.D. Shelley at the Supreme Court of the United States. The attorneys who argued the case for the McGhees were Thurgood Marshall and Loren Miller. The United States Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, who argued in this case that the restrictive covenants were unconstitutional, had previously in 1925 as the city solicitor of Baltimore acted to support the city government's segregation efforts.^[3]

Hurd v. Hodge and Urciolo v. Hodge^[4] were companion cases from the District of Columbia. The Equal Protection Clause does not explicitly apply to a US territory not in a U.S. state, but the Court found that both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and treating persons in the District of Columbia like those in the states forbade restrictive covenants.

Recusals

Three justices—Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Reed, and Wiley B. Rutledge—recused themselves from the case because they owned property subject to restrictive covenants.

Solicitor General's brief

The Solicitor General's brief filed on behalf of the United States government was written by four Jewish lawyers: Philip Elman, Oscar H. Davis, Hilbert P. Zarky, and Stanley M. Silverberg. However, the Solicitor General's office chose to omit their names from the brief. Deputy Solicitor General Arnold Raum, who was also Jewish, stated that it was "bad enough that [Solicitor General Philip] Perlman’s name has to be there, to have one Jew’s name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out."^[5]

Literary responses

In 2010, Jeffrey S. Copeland published Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes Behind Shelley v. Kraemer,^[6] a literary nonfiction account of events leading up to the Shelley v. Kraemer case. In 2017, a documentary film was made titled "The Story of Shelley v. Kraemer." The script for the film was written by Copeland, and it was produced by Joe Marchesani and Laney Kraus-Taddeo of the Audio/Video Production Services division of Educational Technology and Media Services at the University of Northern Iowa (Cedar Falls, Iowa).^[7] The film has been a featured part of the exhibit titled "#1 in Civil Rights: The African American Freedom Struggle in St. Louis,"^[8] at the Missouri History Museum in St. Louis. The film was also nominated for the Sundance Film Festival.

See also

References

1. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/mo1.htm |publisher=National Park Service |work=We Shall Overcome: Historic Places of the Civil Rights Movement |title=Shelley House |accessdate=June 11, 2013}}
2. ^Shelley v. Kraemer, {{ussc|334|1|1948}}.
3. ^{{cite journal|last=Mitchell|first=Juanita Jackson|title=Meade v. Dennistone: The NAACP's Test Case to "... Sue Jim Crow Out of Maryland with the Fourteenth Amendment|journal=Maryland Law Review|volume=63|pages=807|year=2004|url= |doi=}}
4. ^{{ussc|334|24}}
5. ^{{cite journal |first=Philip |last=Elman |first2=Norman |last2=Silber |title=The Solicitor General's Office, Justice Frankfurter, and Civil Rights Litigation, 1946–1960: An Oral History |volume=100 |journal=Harvard Law Review |issue=4 |pages=817–852 [p. 819] |year=1987 |jstor=1341096 |doi=10.2307/1341096 }} As quoted in {{cite journal |authorlink=Seth Waxman |last=Waxman |first=Seth |title=Twins at Birth: Civil Rights and the Role of the Solicitor General |journal=Indiana Law Journal |volume=75 |issue= |pages=1297, 1306 n. 53}}
6. ^Copeland, Jeffrey S. (2010) Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes Behind Shelley v. Kraemer. Paragon House.
7. ^Parker, Melody. "Docu-drama: UNI Prof Makes Film About Landmark Civil Rights Case." Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier. (1 April 2017).
8. ^Russell, Stefene. "At the Missouri History Museum, '[https://www.stlmag.com/history/at-the-missouri-history-museum-1-in-civil-rights-corrects-the-record/ #1 in Civil Rights' Corrects the Record]." Missouri History Museum Newsletter. (20 July 2017).

Sources

External links