Reitman v. Mulkey: Difference between revisions

Reitman v. Mulkey
Reitman v. Mulkey
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 20–21, 1967; Decided May 29, 1967
Full case name	Reitman v. Mulkey
Citations	387 U.S. 369 (more) 87 S. Ct. 1627; 18 L. Ed. 2d 830; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1324
Case history
Prior	Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal.2d 529, 50 Cal.Rptr. 881, 413 P.2d 825 (1966); cert. granted, 385 U.S. 967 (1966).
Holding
	California Proposition 14 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Court membership
	Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas; Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II; William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart; Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Majority	White, joined by Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas
Concurrence	Douglas
Dissent	Harlan, joined by Black, Clark, Stewart
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:43, 6 January 2024

Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that held that a state could not authorize invidious discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing discriminatory private decisions. Thus, the state constitutional amendment by referendum purporting to authorize landlord freedom was unconstitutional.^[1]

Background

In 1963, the Rumford Fair Housing Act (AB 1240) was introduced in the California State Assembly, by Assemblyman William Byron Rumford.^[2] The act banned racial discrimination among mortgage holders, real estate brokers, property owners and landlords who refuse to rent or sell to tenants or potential buyers on the basis of color.^[3] The bill passed the California Legislature on September 20, 1963 and was later signed into law by California Governor Pat Brown.

The act faced immediate protest after it was passed, and faced an initiative and referendum challenge; with opponents collecting over 600,000 signatures—well more than the 468,259 required to add the referendum to the ballot.^[3] The referendum saw significant financial support from California's real-estate industry, with the California Real Estate Association and the Apartment House Owners Association leading the effort to rescind the law.^[4] The "Committee for Home Protection" was initiated by the real-estate industry in the lead up to the laws challenge; looking to garner support with their slogan: "A man's home is his castle."^[5]

The referendum, officially called California Proposition 14, Art. I, § 26, stated 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."^[6]

The referendum passed on November 3, 1964, with two-thirds of Californians voting to repeal the law. A legal challenge was then brought to Proposition 14 in the California Supreme Court by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.^[7] The California Supreme Court held that Art. I, § 26, was designed to overturn state laws prohibiting discrimination, encouraged discrimination and unconstitutionally involved the State in racial discrimination, and was therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Supreme Court

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the California Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision. The Supreme Court focused on examining the constitutionality of § 26 in terms of its "immediate objective" its "ultimate effect" and its "historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment." The Court pointed to its decision in McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. that this was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate and as sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of that case. Therefore, the California Supreme Court was correct in holding that this amendment encouraged discrimination and thus violated the 14th Amendment.

This case can be compared to Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 where the court held that a statewide initiative that was designed primarily to put an end to a newly formed busing program in Seattle was unconstitutional. Thus collectively these cases stand for the proposition that, non-constitutionally required racially based desegregation programs may be repealed, must be repealed by the level of government that develops the program. That is a state can not change the rules just so that a municipality cannot institute a desegregation program.

References

^ Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).
^ Ebony Magazine (January 1964). Will California Send a Negro to the Senate? W. Byron Rumford is considered top possibility to crash "World's MostExclusive Club". p. 25.
^ ^a ^b Stephen Grant Meyer; Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group (1999). As Long As They Don't Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in American Neighborhoods. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 179. ISBN 978-0847697007.
^ John M. Allswang; Stanford University Press (2000). The Initiative and Referendum in California: 1898 - 1998. Stanford University Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-0804738118.
^ David B. Oppenheimer; Golden Gate University Law School (October 7, 2010). "California 's Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Proposition 14, and the Constitutional Protection of Minority Rights: The Fiftieth Anniversary of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act". ggu.edu.
^ University of Maryland School of Law. "California's Proposition 14 And The "State Action" Concept - Reitman v. Mulkey". umaryland.edu.
^ California Institute of Technology. "Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369" (PDF). caltech.edu=.

External links

Text of Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Galloway Jr., Russell W. (1989). "Basic Equal Protection Analysis". Santa Clara Law Review. 29 (1). Retrieved February 8, 2021.

[1] Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).

[2] Ebony Magazine (January 1964). Will California Send a Negro to the Senate? W. Byron Rumford is considered top possibility to crash "World's MostExclusive Club". p. 25.

[Meyer1999-3] Stephen Grant Meyer; Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group (1999). As Long As They Don't Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in American Neighborhoods. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 179. ISBN 978-0847697007.

[4] John M. Allswang; Stanford University Press (2000). The Initiative and Referendum in California: 1898 - 1998. Stanford University Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-0804738118.

[5] David B. Oppenheimer; Golden Gate University Law School (October 7, 2010). "California 's Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Proposition 14, and the Constitutional Protection of Minority Rights: The Fiftieth Anniversary of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act". ggu.edu.

[6] University of Maryland School of Law. "California's Proposition 14 And The "State Action" Concept - Reitman v. Mulkey". umaryland.edu.

[7] California Institute of Technology. "Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369" (PDF). caltech.edu=.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
-{{SCOTUSCase
+{{Infobox SCOTUS case
   |Litigants=Reitman v. Mulkey
+  |ArgueDateA=March 20
-  |ArgueDate=
+  |ArgueDateB=21
   |ArgueYear=1967
-  |DecideDate=
+  |DecideDate=May 29
-  |DecideYear=1969
+  |DecideYear=1967
-  |FullName=
+  |FullName=Reitman v. Mulkey
   |USVol=387
   |USPage=369
-  |Citation=87 S. Ct. 1627; 18 L. Ed. 2d 830;
+  |ParallelCitations=87 S. Ct. 1627; 18 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 830; 1967 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 1324
+  |Prior=''Mulkey v. Reitman'', 64 Cal.2d 529, 50 Cal.Rptr. 881, 413 [[P.2d]] 825 (1966); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, {{ussc|385|967|1966|el=no}}.
-  |Prior=
   |Subsequent=
+  |Holding=[[1964 California Proposition 14|California Proposition 14]] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
-  |Holding=
-  |SCOTUS=1965-1967
   |Majority=White
-  |JoinMajority=
+  |JoinMajority=Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas
+  |Concurrence=Douglas
   |Dissent=Harlan
   |JoinDissent=Black, Clark, Stewart
-  |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution]]
+  |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]
 }}
+{{wikisource}}
-'''''Reitman v. Mulkey''''', [[Case citation|387 U.S. 369]] ([[1967]]){{ref|citation}}, was a [[United States Supreme Court]] decision that overturned an important precedent of [[Constitutional Law]] in limiting Federal authority by upsetting the balance of the [[separation of powers]] within the [[United States Constitution]], in turn, setting up an ongoing legal battle in state and federal courts over [[Stare decisis|precedent]] regarding state and federal jurisdiction.  The ruling said that state Supreme Courts could remove a constitutional amendment passed by initiative, if the proffered amendment "encouraged" racial discrimination.  By precedent the ruling set the stage by which the Federal Supreme Court could declare amendments to the State Constitutions, entire State Constitutions, and even Amendments to the US Constitution as unconstitutional.  Ultimately, the case was used to invalidate a number of State constituions as unconstitutional and has led to an increase in questions over the US Supreme Court's and various state Court's legitimacy.
+'''''Reitman v. Mulkey''''', 387 U.S. 369 (1967), was a [[United States Supreme Court]] decision that set an important legal [[Stare decisis|precedent]]  that held that a state could not authorize [[wikt:invidious|invidious]] discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing  discriminatory private decisions. Thus, the state constitutional amendment by referendum purporting to authorize landlord freedom was unconstitutional.<ref>{{ussc|name=Reitman v. Mulkey|volume=387|page=369|pin=|year=1967}}.</ref>
+==Background==
-In 1964, pursuant to an initiative and referendum, Art. I, § 26, was added to the California 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."
+In 1963, the [[Rumford Fair Housing Act]] (AB 1240) was introduced in the [[California State Assembly]], by Assemblyman [[William Byron Rumford]].<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BHE-bxJH_KsC&q=William+Byron+Rumford+fair+housing+act&pg=PA25 | title =Will California Send a Negro to the Senate? W. Byron Rumford is considered top possibility to crash "World's MostExclusive Club" | author =Ebony Magazine | author-link =Ebony Magazine | page =25 | date =January 1964}}</ref> The act banned racial discrimination among mortgage holders, real estate brokers, property owners and landlords who refuse to rent or sell to tenants or potential buyers on the basis of color.<ref name="Meyer1999">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FCrouSLl3pYC&q=Rumford+Fair+Housing+Act&pg=PA179 | title =As Long As They Don't Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in American Neighborhoods | author =Stephen Grant Meyer | author2 =Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group | author2-link =Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group | isbn =978-0847697007 | page =179 | year =1999| publisher =Rowman & Littlefield }}</ref> The bill passed the California Legislature on September 20, 1963 and was later signed into law by [[Governor of California|California Governor]] [[Pat Brown]].
-The California Supreme Court held that Art. I, § 26, was designed to overturn state laws prohibiting discrimination, encouraged discrimination and unconstitutionally involved the State in racial discrimination, and was therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
+The act faced immediate protest after it was passed, and faced an initiative and referendum challenge; with opponents collecting over 600,000 signatures—well more than the 468,259 required to add the referendum to the ballot.<ref name="Meyer1999" /> The referendum saw significant financial support from California's real-estate industry, with the California Real Estate Association and the Apartment House Owners Association leading the effort to rescind the law.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4tt9zw8KrwMC&q=California+Proposition+14++California+Real+Estate+Association&pg=PA74 | title =The Initiative and Referendum in California: 1898 - 1998 | author =John M. Allswang | author2 =Stanford University Press | author2-link =Stanford University Press | isbn =978-0804738118 | page =74 | year =2000| publisher =Stanford University Press }}</ref> The "Committee for Home Protection" was initiated by the real-estate industry in the lead up to the laws challenge; looking to garner support with their slogan: "A man's home is his castle."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2010&context=ggulrev | title =California 's Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Proposition 14, and the Constitutional Protection of Minority Rights: The Fiftieth Anniversary of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act | author =David B. Oppenheimer | author2 =Golden Gate University Law School | author2-link =Golden Gate University Law School | publisher =ggu.edu | date =October 7, 2010}}</ref>
-The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the California Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.  The Supreme Court focused on examining the constitutionality of § 26 in terms of its "immediate objective" its "ultimate effect" and its "historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment." The Court pointed to its decision in McCabe v. Atchison that this was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate and as sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of that case.  Therefore, the California Supreme Court was correct in holding that this amendment encouraged discrimination and thus violated the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]].
+The referendum, officially called [[California Proposition 14 (1964)|California Proposition 14]], Art. I, § 26, stated 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."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2050&context=mlr | title =California's Proposition 14 And The "State Action" Concept - Reitman v. Mulkey | author =University of Maryland School of Law | author-link =University of Maryland School of Law | publisher =umaryland.edu}}</ref>
-This case can be compared to  Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 where the court held that a state-wide initiative that was designed primarily to put an end to a newly formed busing program in Seattle was unconstitutional.  Thus collectively these cases stand for the proposition that, non-constitutionally required racially based desegregation programs may be repealed, that must be repealed by the level of government that develops the program.  That is a state can not change the rules just so that a municipality cannot institute a desegregation program.
+The referendum passed on November 3, 1964, with two-thirds of Californians voting to repeal the law. A legal challenge was then brought to Proposition 14 in the [[California Supreme Court]] by the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~kousser/dictionary%20entries/reitman%20v%20mulkey.pdf | title =Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 | author =California Institute of Technology | author-link =California Institute of Technology | publisher =caltech.edu=}}</ref> The [[California Supreme Court]] held that Art. I, § 26, was designed to overturn state laws prohibiting discrimination, encouraged discrimination and unconstitutionally involved the State in racial discrimination, and was therefore invalid under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].
+==Supreme Court==
+The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the California Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision.  The Supreme Court focused on examining the constitutionality of § 26 in terms of its "immediate objective" its "ultimate effect" and its "historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment." The Court pointed to its decision in ''[[McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.]]'' that this was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate and as sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of that case.  Therefore, the California Supreme Court was correct in holding that this amendment encouraged discrimination and thus violated the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]].
+This case can be compared to ''[[Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1]]'' where the court held that a statewide initiative that was designed primarily to put an end to a newly formed busing program in Seattle was unconstitutional.  Thus collectively these cases stand for the proposition that, non-constitutionally required racially based desegregation programs may be repealed, must be repealed by the level of government that develops the program.  That is a state can not change the rules just so that a municipality cannot institute a desegregation program.
 ==See also==
 *[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 387]]
+==References==
+{{Reflist|2}}
 ==External links==
+* {{caselaw source
-* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=387&page=369 Full text opinion from Findlaw.com]
+ | case = ''Reitman v. Mulkey'', {{ussc|387|369|1967|el=no}}
+ | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107467/reitman-v-mulkey/
+ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/387/369.html
+ | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/369/
+ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep387/usrep387369/usrep387369.pdf
+ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/483
+ }}
+* {{cite journal |title=Basic Equal Protection Analysis |url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=lawreview |first=Russell W. |last=Galloway Jr. |journal=Santa Clara Law Review |volume=29 |number=1 |year=1989 |access-date=February 8, 2021}}
+{{US14thAmendment|equalprotection}}
-[[Category:History of civil rights in the United States]]
+[[Category:United States equal protection case law]]
 [[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
-[[Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law]]
 [[Category:United States immigration and naturalization case law]]
 [[Category:1967 in United States case law]]
+[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
+[[Category:United States racial discrimination case law]]