Corrigan v. Buckley

Corrigan et al. v. Buckley
Corrigan et al. v. Buckley
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 8, 1926; Decided May 24, 1926
Full case name	Corrigan et al. v. Buckley
Citations	271 U.S. 323 ( more ) 46 S. Ct. 521; 70 L. Ed. 969
Holding
	This decision dismissed any constitutional grounds for challenges racially restrictive covenants and upheld the legal right of property owners to enforce these discriminatory agreements.
Court membership
	Chief Justice William H. Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter ; James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis ; George Sutherland · Pierce Butler ; Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinion
Majority	Sanford, joined by unanimous
	Overruled by
	Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Last updated January 21, 2024

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.^[1] This ruling set the precedent upholding racially restrictive covenants in Washington; soon after this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation.^[2] Subsequently, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) the court reconsidered such covenants and found that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable.

Background

Buchanan v. Warley (1917) barred the government from enforcing segregation through explicitly racial zoning provisions.^[2] But in the aftermath of Buchanan, other less explicit methods to force and maintain segregation were created, such as racially-restrictive covenants. Another tactic, exclusionary zoning, was not explicitly racial in description but maintained de facto racial segregation and was upheld in Euclid v. Ambler (1926). The covenants were documents drawn up by members of a neighborhood and stated that the signers would not sell their homes to any nonwhite person. The agreements were instituted on a private scale and so had never had to face justification from the courts. Many citizens who signed the papers were afraid of blacks moving in and lowering their property values. The whites gave numerous reasons for how the exclusion of blacks was logical and understandable. However, the reasons were used in the end as a façade to cover up the racism that was still prevalent at that time. Washington had always been a racially-segregated city, and one such covenant was signed for the block on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue.^[2]

Case

Corrigan v. Buckley resulted from an infringement upon a covenant. An agreement was made in 1921 by 30 white homeowners that none among them would sell, rent, or allow black people to obtain their land by any means.^[3] In 1922, Irene Corrigan broke the restrictions put in place by the covenant. Corrigan sold her land to a black couple, Helen and Dr. Arthur Curtis.^[3]Corrigan vs. Buckley went through a five-year court case before finally it was settled by the Supreme Court in 1926. Buckley and the offense hoped that since the covenant was a written and signed document, it would be considered viable in a court of law. Curtis and Corrigan "moved to dismiss the bill on the ground that the covenant deprived the negro of property without due process of law, abridged the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and denied him the equal protection of the law."^[3] Corrigan and Curtis argued that not selling her house would be a violation of Curtis's civil rights, but Buckley argued that the contract was binding and that Corrigan had no right to break it.

The District Supreme Court sided with Buckley and stated that legal segregation happened all around DC and was a legal practice. The DC Court of Appeals also sided with Buckley and stated that since blacks had the ability to exclude others from their neighborhoods in which they lived, it did not discriminate against them and so did not violate Curtis's civil rights.^[4] Both courts used the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson , which legalized segregation if the separate races had equal facilities, to state their case.

The NAACP lawyers kept the appeals process going to the Supreme Court. They cited that the racially-restrictive covenants would "drive colored folk out of Washington."^[2] Once again, the court sided with Buckley. Justice Sanford delivered the decision: "in the absence of any substantial constitutional or statutory question giving us jurisdiction of this appeal under the provisions of section 250 of the Judicial Code, we cannot determine upon the merits the contentions earnestly pressed by the defendants in this court that the indenture is not only void because contrary to public policy, but is also of such a discriminatory character that a court of equity will not lend its aid by enforcing the specific performance of the covenant."^[5] The ruling meant that the purchase that Curtis had made on the house was now void and that the covenant was upheld.

Aftermath

By upholding the dismissal of the case, the Supreme Court set the precedent that racially exclusive covenants were acceptable and not prohibited by law.^[6] That led to the spread of covenants throughout the DC area. In the years following the case, petition covenants quickly spread to many white neighborhoods in DC. Hundreds of lots signed onto petition covenants in 1927, the year after Corrigan v. Buckley. The covenants were not a federally-mandated form of segregation, and the decision in Corrigan v. Buckley seemed to take a few steps back in the progress concerning black civil rights in the United States.

One major impact of the Corrigan v. Buckley case was on the neighborhood on S Street NW, where the covenant was originally signed by Corrigan and Buckley. Buckley stopped Helen Curtis from moving into No. 1727 on S Street. However, as the court case was being fought, Dr. Emmett J. Scott, a black man, moved into No. 1711 of S Street in April 1923.^[4] That caused a very quick migration of the white community out of the neighborhood. By 1934, the neighborhood had an 86% nonwhite population.^[4] The population shift showed the extreme effect that one black person could have on a neighborhood that was almost completely inhabited by whites. Many neighborhoods shifted dramatically during this time, as many DC white people left the city for the suburbs. The "white flight," as it was coined, was often the result of a black person moving into a neighborhood that was almost completely inhabited by whites. The white people still living in those houses feared that their property values would go down dramatically unless they sold right away; they would thus move out to the suburbs as quickly as possible.^[2]

The ramifications of Corrigan v. Buckley were felt throughout the DC area. The use of covenants spread rapidly until almost entire neighborhoods were promised to be racially homogeneous.^[2] Blacks now faced the possibility of lawsuits if they used loopholes to work around the housing restrictions.^[2] Some blacks who managed to sneak past the covenants and the occasionally-racist sellers, and to move into a home would often lead to a mass exodus of whites to other areas. The precedent that racial exclusion in terms of housing was acceptable lasted for a few decades before the issue was reconsidered by the judicial system. It was only at Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) that the Supreme Court determined that it was unconstitutional for the legal system to enforce covenants.^[6]Corrigan v. Buckley set the precedent that racially restrictive covenants were just, and it lasted for years.^[6]

Related Research Articles

Charles Hamilton Houston was an American lawyer. He was the dean of Howard University Law School and NAACP first special counsel. A graduate of Amherst College and Harvard Law School, Houston played a significant role in dismantling Jim Crow laws, especially attacking segregation in schools and racial housing covenants. He earned the title "The Man Who Killed Jim Crow".

Sundown towns, also known as sunset towns, gray towns, or sundowner towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States and Canada that were most prevalent before the mid-20th century, which practiced a form of racial segregation by excluding non-whites via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation or violence. The term came into use because of signs that directed "colored people" to leave town by sundown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ossian Sweet</span> American physician (1895–1960)

Ossian Sweet was an African-American physician in Detroit, Michigan. He is known for being charged with murder in 1925 after he and his friends used armed self-defense against a hostile white mob protesting after Sweet moved into their neighborhood. Stones were thrown at his house, breaking windows. Shots were fired, and one white man was killed and another wounded. Sweet, his wife, and nine associates at the house were all arrested and charged with murder.

Blockbusting is a business practice in the United States in which real estate agents and building developers convinced residents in a particular area to sell their property at below-market prices. This was achieved by fearmongering the homeowners, telling them that racial minorities would soon be moving into their neighborhoods. The blockbusters would then sell those same houses at inflated prices to black families seeking upward mobility. Blockbusting became prominent after post-World War II bans on explicitly segregationist real estate practices. By the 1980s it had mostly disappeared in the United States after changes to the law and real estate market.

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.

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), is a famous and commonly-used case in civil procedure classes for teaching that res judicata does not apply to an individual whose interests were not adequately represented in a prior class action. The case was successfully argued by the civil rights attorney Earl B. Dickerson.

Facilities and services such as housing, healthcare, education, employment, and transportation have been systematically separated in the United States on racial categorizations. Segregation was the legally or socially enforced separation of African Americans from whites, as well as the separation of other ethnic minorities from majority and mainstream communities. While mainly referring to the physical separation and provision of separate facilities, it can also refer to other manifestations such as prohibitions against interracial marriage, and the separation of roles within an institution. The U.S. Armed Forces were formally segregated until 1948, as black units were typically separated from white units but were still led by white officers.

North Portal Estates is an affluent residential neighborhood in Washington, D.C. that forms the northernmost corner of the District of Columbia. North Portal Estates is bounded by North Portal Drive to the south, East Beach Drive to the west and northwest, and Rock Creek Park to the northeast. It is not set on any major thoroughfare in the city, although North Portal Drive is accessible via a rotary intersection on 16th Street NW.

The Washington Park Subdivision is the name of the historic 3-city block by 4-city block subdivision in the northwest corner of the Woodlawn community area, on the South Side of Chicago in Illinois that stands in the place of the original Washington Park Race Track. The area evolved as a redevelopment of the land previously occupied by the racetrack. It was originally an exclusively white neighborhood that included residential housing, amusement parks, and beer gardens.

The Washington Park Court District is a Grand Boulevard community area neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois. It was designated a Chicago Landmark on October 2, 1991. Despite its name, it is not located within either the Washington Park community area or the Washington Park park, but is one block north of both. The district was named for the Park.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial aspects of race in the United States</span> Aspect of history

Legislation seeking to direct relations between racial or ethnic groups in the United States has had several historical phases, developing from the European colonization of the Americas, the triangular slave trade, and the American Indian Wars. The 1776 Declaration of Independence included the statement that "all men are created equal", which has ultimately inspired actions and legislation against slavery and racial discrimination. Such actions have led to passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Loren Miller was an American journalist, civil rights activist, attorney, and judge. Miller was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court by governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown in 1964 and served until his death in 1967. Miller was a specialist in housing discrimination, whose involvement in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement earned him a reputation as a tenacious fighter for equal housing opportunities for minorities. Miller argued some of the most historic civil rights cases ever heard before the Supreme Court of the United States. He was chief counsel before the court in the 1948 decision that led to the outlawing of racial restrictive covenants, Shelley v. Kraemer.

Residential segregation is the physical separation of two or more groups into different neighborhoods—a form of segregation that "sorts population groups into various neighborhood contexts and shapes the living environment at the neighborhood level". While it has traditionally been associated with racial segregation, it generally refers to the separation of populations based on some criteria.

The Strivers' Section Historic District is a historic district located in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Strivers' Section was historically an enclave of upper-middle-class African Americans, often community leaders, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It takes its name from a turn-of-the-20th-century writer who described the district as "the Striver's section, a community of Negro aristocracy." The name echoes that of Strivers' Row in Harlem, a New York City historic neighborhood of black professionals. The district is roughly bounded by Swann Street and the Dupont Circle Historic District on the south, Florida Avenue and the Washington Heights Historic District on the north and west, and the Sixteenth Street Historic District on the east.

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.

Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 (1948), was a companion case to Shelley v. Kraemer, in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a federal court from enforcing restrictive covenants that would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property based on race or color. Hurd v. Hodge also involved racially restrictive covenants on houses in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

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.

The Orsel and Minnie McGhee House is a single family home located at 4626 Seebaldt Street in Detroit. The house played a role in the landmark Shelley v. Kraemer Supreme Court decision that determined racially restrictive covenants to be unenforceable. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2022.

References

↑ Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Asch, Chris Myers; Musgrove, George Derek (2017). Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9781469635866.
1 2 3 "Constitutional Law. Covenant Prohibiting Sale of Property to Negro Is Constitutional." Virginia Law Review 11, no. 1 (November 1924): 68–69.
1 2 3 "Mapping Segregation." Prologue DC LLC. Accessed January 24, 2016. http://prologuedc.com/blog/mapping-segregation.
↑ "1920s–1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants." Accessed January 24, 2016. http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html.
1 2 3 Shay, Allison. "On This Day: Corrigan v. Buckley and Housing Discrimination." Publishing the Long Civil Rights Movement RSS. May 24, 2012. Accessed January 24, 2016.

External links

Text of Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323(1926) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926).

[Asch-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Asch, Chris Myers; Musgrove, George Derek (2017). Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9781469635866.

[VaLRev-3] 1 2 3 "Constitutional Law. Covenant Prohibiting Sale of Property to Negro Is Constitutional." Virginia Law Review 11, no. 1 (November 1924): 68–69.

[map-4] 1 2 3 "Mapping Segregation." Prologue DC LLC. Accessed January 24, 2016. http://prologuedc.com/blog/mapping-segregation.

[5] "1920s–1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants." Accessed January 24, 2016. http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html.

[Shay-6] 1 2 3 Shay, Allison. "On This Day: Corrigan v. Buckley and Housing Discrimination." Publishing the Long Civil Rights Movement RSS. May 24, 2012. Accessed January 24, 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]