« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
$ 1978 of the Revised Statuten, derived from $ 1 of the Civil Rights Aot of 1866 which was enacted by Congress while the Lourteonth Amendment was also under consideration, provides:
"All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as' is en joyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal prop
erty." • This Court has given specific recognition to the same principle. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60 (1917).
It is likewise clear that restrictions on the right of occupancy of the sort sought to be created by the private agreements in these cases could not be squared with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment if imposed by state statute or local ordinance. We do not understand respondents to urge the contrary. In the case of Buchanan v. Warley, supra, a unanimous Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of a city ordinance which denied to colored persons the right to occupy houses in blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by white persons, and imposed similar restrictions on white persons with respect to blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by colored persons. During the course of the opinion in that case, this Court stated: “The Fourteenth Amendment and these statutes enacted in furtherance of its purpose operate to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire
• In Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 640 (1948) the section of the Civil Rights Act berein considered is described as the federal statute, "enacted before the Fourteenth Amendment but vindicated by it." The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was reenacted in § 18 of the Act of May 31, 1870, subsequent to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. 16 Stat. 144.
• 14 Stat. 21,8 U. 8. C. 9 42.
property without state legislation discriminating against him solely because of color." 10
In Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U.S. 668 (1927), a unanimous court, on the authority of Buchanan v. Warley, supra, declared invalid an ordinance which forbade any Negro to establish a home on any property in a white community or any white person to establish a home in a Negro community, "except on the written consent of a majority of the persons of the opposite race inhabiting such community or portion of the City to be affected.”
The precise question before this Court in both the Buchanan.and Harmon cases involved the rights of white sellers to dispose of their properties free from restrictions as to potential purchasers based on considerations of race or color. But that such legislation is also offensive to the rights of those desiring to acquire and occupy property and barred on grounds of race or color is clear, not only from the language of the opinion in Buchanan v. Warley, supra, but from this Court's disposition of the case of Richmond v. Deans, 281 U. S. 704 (1930). There, a Negro, barred from the occupancy of certain property by the terms of an ordinance similar to that in the Buchanan case, sought injunctive relief in the federal courts to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance on the grounds that its provisions violated the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such relief was granted, and this Court affirmed, finding the citation of Buchanan v. Warley, supra, and Harmon v. Tyler, supra, sufficient to support its judgment."
But the present cases, unlike those just discussed, do not involve action by state legislatures or city councils.
10 Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60,79 (1917).
"Courts of Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia have also declared similar statutes invalid as being in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. Glover v. Atlanta,
Here the particular patterns of discrimination and the areas in which the restrictions are to operate, are determined, in the first instance, by the terms of agreements among private individuals. Participation of the State consists in the enforcement of the restrictions so defined. The crucial issue with which we are here confronted is whether this distinction removes these cases from the operation of the prohibitory provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since the decision of this Court in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the principle has become firmly embedded in our constitutional law that the action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful."?
We conclude, therefore, that the restrictive agreements standing alone cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment. So long as the purposes of those agreements are effectuated by voluntary adherence to their terms, it would appear clear that there has been no action by the State and the provisions of the Amendment have not been violated. Cf. Corrigan v. Buckley, supra.
But here there was more. These are cases in which the purposes of the agreements were secured only by judicial enforcement by state courts of the restrictive
148 Ga. 285, 96 S. E. 562 (1918); Jackson v. State, 132 VId. 311, 103 A. 910 (1918); Clinard v. Winston-Salem, 217 X. C. 119, 6 S. E. 2d 867 (1940); Alen v. Oklahoma City, 175 Okla. 421, 52 P. 2d 1054 (1936); Liberty Anner Corp. ". Dallas, 289 S. W. 1067 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927); Irvine v. Clifton Forge, 124 l'a. 781, 97 S. E. 310 (1918).
13 And see United States v. Harris. 106 U. S. 629 (1883); l'nited States v. Crakshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876).
terms of the agreements. The respondents urge that judicial enforcement of private agreements does not amount to state action; or, in any event, the participation of the State is so attenuated in character as not to amount to state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, it is suggested, even if the States in these cases may be deemed to have acted in the constitutional sense, their action did not deprive petitioners of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We move to a consideration of these matters.
That the action of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of this Court. That principle was given expression in the earliest cases involving the construction of the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880), this Court stated: “It is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies, either by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities; and the prohibitions of the amendmenť extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another.” In Ex parte Virginia, 100 V. S. 339, 347 (1880), the Court observed: “A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way." In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 L'. S.3, 11, 17 (1883), this Court pointed out that the Amendment makes void "State action of every kind” which is inconsistent with the guaranties therein contained, and extends to manifestations of "State authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive proceedings." Language to like effect is em
ployed ng lean than eighteen times during the course of that opinion."
Similar expressions, giving specific recognition to the inct that judicial action is to be regarded as action of the State for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, are to be found in numerous cases which have been more recently decided. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 90-91 (1908), the Court said: "The judicial act of the highest court of the State, in authoritatively construing and enforcing its laws, is the act of the State.” In Brinkerhof-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hal, 281 U. S. 673, 680 (1930), the Court, through Mr. Justice Brandeis, statod: "The federal guaranty of due process extends to stato action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government.” Further examples of such declarations in the opinions of this Court are not lacking."
One of the earliest applications of the prohibitions contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to action of state
" Among the phrases appearing in the opinion are the following: "the operation of State laws, and the action of State officers executive or judicial"; "State laws and State proceedings"; "State law ... or some State action through its officers or agents"; "State laws and acts done under State authority"; "State laws, or State action of some kind"; "such laws as the States may adopt or enforce"; "auch acts and proceedings as the States may commit or take"; "State legislation or action"; "State law or State authority."
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397 (1881); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45 (1894); Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. 8. 226, 233-235 (1897); Hovey v. Elkott, 167 U. 8. 409, 417 418 (1897); Carter v. Tetas, 177 U. 8. 442, 447 (1900); Martin v. Teras, 200 U. 8. 316, 319 (1906); Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. 8. 20, 35-36 (1907); Aome Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278, 286-287 (1913); Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. 8. 530, 548 (1922); Ameri can Railway Exprew Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. 8. 200, 274 (1927); Mooney v. Holohan, 284 U. 8. 103, 112-113 .(1935); Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. 8. 82, 41 (1940).