Self-paced
P1
The United States Supreme Court’s 1948 ruling in . ███████ ██ ███████
Shelley v. Kraemer ·
Ended enforcement of racial covenants
Racial covenants perpetuated segregation in housing. The SCOTUS ruling in Shelley ended its enforcement.
Main Conclusion ·
The legal rationale for Shelley is problematic
P2
███ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███
Shelley Rationale ·
Relied on Fourteenth Amendment
Specifically, equal protection under the law for all U.S. citizens. But that only applied to state actors, not individuals. And racial covenants were private contracts.
Shelley Rationale ·
"Attribution" to the state
The Shelly decision argues that while the contracts are between private actors, the enforcement of them is state action and therefore unconstitutional.
P3
█████████ ███████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ████████ █████ ████ █████████ █████████
Premise ·
Critiques attribution logic
Dissolves the distinction between state and private action. Every private contract assumes state enforcement. According to Shelley, every private contract must conform to constitutional standards.
PREMISE ·
Critiques attribution logic
SCOTUS and lower courts recognize this flaw and they don't even apply Shelley’s rationale. The do the opposite: they enforce private agreements that would violate constitutional rights, e.g., the right to free speech.
P4
█████████████ █████ ██ █ ████████████
Premise ·
Critiques Shelley
The actual problem were the racially restrictive covenants themselves, which Shelley somehow concluded were legal.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
2.
An answer to which one ██ ███ █████████ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ █
a
What range of ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████
No aspect of the definition of “state action” involves the potential effects of the action.
b
To what agent ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████
This is relevant to whether an action is a “state action.” If we can ascribe (attribute) the performance of an action to the state, then it’s a state action.
c
What principle or ██████████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████
No aspect of the definition of “state action” involves the principles that govern the action. The court in Shelley v. Kraemer, for example, didn’t ask why the action was done in order to determine whether it was a state action.
d
In what ways ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████
No aspect of the definition of “state action” involves the potential effects of the action.
e
What motivations can ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████
No aspect of the definition of “state action” involves the motivations underlying the action. The court in Shelley v. Kraemer, for example, didn’t ask why the action was done in order to determine whether it was a state action.