How enforcing racially restrictive covenants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: A review of Shelley v. Kramer.

Does the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant by a state court amount to state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause? (Shelley v. Kramer)

Yes. State court enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant by a state court amounts to state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as held in the landmark case Shelley v. Kramer.

In Shelley v. Kramer, the plaintiffs, African-American homeowners, challenged the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant in their neighborhood. The restrictive covenant barred African-Americans and other minorities from living in the neighborhood. The defendants argued that the enforcement of the covenant was a private contract matter and did not involve state action.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the enforcement of such a covenant by a state court is state action because the state court is an arm of the state government. The Court held that state action in enforcing racially restrictive covenants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminates against African-Americans and other minorities based on their race.

Therefore, the Shelley v. Kramer decision made it clear that any state action that discriminates on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause and is unconstitutional. This decision was an important milestone in the Civil Rights Movement and helped to pave the way for further progress in cases related to racial discrimination and civil rights.

More Answers: