|
|
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)
Reitman v. Mulkey No. 483 Argued March 221, 1967 Decided May 29, 1967 387 U.S. 369
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
The California Legislature, during the period 1959-1963, enacted several statutes regulating racial discrimination in housing. In 1964, pursuant to an initiative and referendum, Art. I, § 26, was added to the state constitution. It provided in part that neither the State nor any agency thereof
shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.
The California Supreme Court held that Art. I, § 26, was designed to overturn state laws that bore on the right of private persons to discriminate, that it invalidly involved the State in racial discrimination in the housing market, and that it changed the situation from one in which discriminatory practices were restricted to one where they are "encouraged," within the meaning of this Court’s decisions. The court concluded that Art. I, § 26, unconstitutionally involves the State in racial discrimination, and is therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Held: The California Supreme Court believes that Art. I, § 26, which does not merely repeal existing law forbidding private racial discrimination, but authorizes racial discrimination in the housing market and establishes the right to discriminate as a basic state policy, will significantly encourage and involve the State in private discriminations. No persuasive considerations indicating that the judgments herein should be overturned have been presented, and they are affirmed. Pp. 373-381.
64 Cal.2d 529, 877, 413 P.2d 825, 847, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967) in 387 U.S. 369 387 U.S. 370. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QRCHPCS2TVBMGTQ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), in 387 U.S. 369, page 387 U.S. 370. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QRCHPCS2TVBMGTQ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967). cited in 1967, 387 U.S. 369, pp.387 U.S. 370. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QRCHPCS2TVBMGTQ.
|