Buchanan v. Warley

Last updated

Buchanan v. Warley
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 10–11, 1916
Reargued April 27, 1917
Decided November 5, 1917
Full case nameBuchanan v. Warley
Citations245 U.S. 60 ( more )
38 S. Ct. 16; 62 L. Ed. 149; 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1788
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · John H. Clarke
Case opinion
MajorityDay, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), 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.

Contents

Previous 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 before 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 person 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 predominantly 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, a white man, 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, so it was of less value to him. Buchanan sued on the grounds that the ordinance was unconstitutional, and he should receive full payment.

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] The ruling did not address the right of owners or developers to restrict housing based on private agreements, meaning private housing restrictions against race were legally enforceable.

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

Related Research Articles

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for African-Americans were equal in quality to those of white people, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". The decision legitimized the many state "Jim Crow laws" re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877. Such legally enforced segregation in the South lasted into the 1960s.

Sundown towns, also known as sunset towns, gray towns, or sundowner towns, were all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States. They were towns that practice a form of racial segregation by excluding non-whites via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation or violence. They were most prevalent before the 1950s. The term came into use because of signs that directed "colored people" to leave town by sundown.

A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration. In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John H. Buschemeyer</span> American politician (1869–1935)

John Henry Buschemeyer was mayor of Louisville, Kentucky from 1913 to 1917.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zoning in the United States</span> Provision in urban planning in the United States

Zoning is a law that divides a jurisdiction's land into districts, or zones, and limits how land in each district can be used. In the United States, zoning includes various land use laws enforced through the police power rights of state governments and local governments to exercise authority over privately owned real property.

Carl Braden was a trade unionist, journalist, and activist who was known for his work in the civil rights movement.

Exclusionary zoning is the use of zoning ordinances to exclude certain types of land uses from a given community, especially to regulate racial and economic diversity. In the United States, exclusionary zoning ordinances are standard in almost all communities. Exclusionary zoning was introduced in the early 1900s, typically to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from moving into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. Municipalities use zoning to limit population density, such as by prohibiting multi-family residential dwellings or setting minimum lot size requirements. These ordinances raise costs, making it less likely that lower-income groups will move in. Development fees for variance, a building permit, a certificate of occupancy, a filing (legal) cost, special permits and planned-unit development applications for new housing also raise prices to levels inaccessible for lower income people.

Clarence H. Mullins was an American jurist from the state of Alabama. He served as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama from 1943 until his death in 1957. He was the Chief Judge of the District court from 1948 until he assumed senior status in 1953 as a result of disability. Mullins was notable for his rulings in the 1940s in favor of desegregation, especially in housing discrimination.

Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U.S. 668 (1927), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision addressing racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held that a New Orleans, Louisiana ordinance requiring residential segregation based on race violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court relied on the authority of Buchanan v. Warley.

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.

Housing discrimination in the United States refers to the historical and current barriers, policies, and biases that prevent equitable access to housing. Housing discrimination became more pronounced after the abolition of slavery in 1865, typically as part of Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation. The federal government didn't begin to take action against these laws until 1917, when the Supreme Court struck down ordinances prohibiting African-Americans from occupying or owning buildings in majority-white neighborhoods in Buchanan v. Warley. However, the federal government as well as local governments continued to be directly responsible for housing discrimination through redlining and race-restricted covenants until the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, and found that the invasion of the plaintiff's property right was "serious and highly injurious," and that the placement of the locus of the zoning ordinance would not promote the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the inhabitants of Cambridge. It, along with Euclid v. Ambler, constituted the Supreme Court's case law on zoning until 1974.

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. This ruling set the precedent upholding racially restrictive covenants in Washington; soon after this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation. Subsequently, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) the court reconsidered such covenants and found that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American ghettos</span> Poor racially segregated urban neighborhoods in the United States

Ghettos in the United States are typically urban neighborhoods perceived as being high in crime and poverty. The origins of these areas are specific to the United States and its laws, which created ghettos through both legislation and private efforts to segregate America for political, economic, social, and ideological reasons: de jure and de facto segregation. De facto segregation continues today in ways such as residential segregation and school segregation because of contemporary behavior and the historical legacy of de jure segregation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1928 Austin city plan</span> Plan commissioned by Austin City Council

The 1928 Austin city plan was commissioned in 1927 by the City Council of Austin, Texas. It was developed by consulting firm Koch & Fowler, which presented the final proposal early the next year. The major recommendations of this city plan related to Austin's street plan, its zoning code, and the development of major industries and civic features, but it is most remembered for institutionalizing housing segregation by designating East Austin as the city's negro district.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Single-family zoning</span> Residential planning classification

Single-family zoning is a type of planning restriction applied to certain residential zones in the United States and Canada in order to restrict development to only allow single-family detached homes. It disallows townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily housing (apartments) from being built on any plot of land with this zoning designation.

Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to municipal parking restrictions. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that a residential zoned parking system requiring permits for daytime parking in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood of Arlington County, Virginia, with those permits limited to residents, their guests and those who came to their homes for business purposes had a rational basis and was thus constitutional. Its decision overturned the Virginia Supreme Court.

William Warley was an American journalist, newspaper editor, and civil rights activist. He was the chapter president of the NAACP in Louisville, Kentucky. He went to court over the city's segregated housing policy in what became the U.S. Supreme Court case Buchanan v. Warley. Warley had been blocked from buying a home in a "white neighborhood" in 1915. In 1917 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that government ordinances segregating housing violated constitutional rights. Warley also protested segregated streetcars.

The Colored Citizens Protective League (CCPL) was established in Falls Church, Virginia in 1915 to advocate against proposed town ordinances to restrict areas where African Americans could live. It went on to become the first rural NAACP branch.

References

  1. Silver, Christopher (1997). "The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities". In Thomas, J. M.; Ritzdorf, M. (eds.). Urban Planning & the African American Community: In the Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ. ISBN   0803972334.[ page needed ]
  2. Power, Garrett (1983). "Apartheid Baltimore Style: the Residential Segregation Ordinances of 1910–1913". Maryland Law Review. 42 (2): 289–329.
  3. 1 2 "Buchanan v. Warley". Justia. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  4. "Buchanan v. Warley". Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  5. Barnett, Randy E.; Blackman, Josh (2017). Constitutional Law: Cases in Context, Second Edition, 2017 Supplement. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Further reading