PT151.S1.P1.Q4 > Analytics

Hide analysis

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

███ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████ █████ ██████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███

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.

█████████ ███████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ████████ █████ ████ █████████ █████████ ████████████ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ████████ ████████████ ███

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.

█████████████ █████ ██ █ ████████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ███████████████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███████████ █████████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ████████

Premise · Critiques Shelley

The actual problem were the racially restrictive covenants themselves, which Shelley somehow concluded were legal.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Which one of the following █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████████████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ███████████ █████████████ █████████ ███████████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████

Question Type

Analogy (RC)

The Court found that contracts entered into by private individuals could be “attributed” to the state when a court enforces the contracts. Even though courts do not come up with the substance of the contracts, the contracts’ provisions can be attributed to the state through the court’s enforcement. Let’s look for an answer that involves attributing the substance of one entity’s action to another entity.

If a trucking ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ███ █████████

This doesn’t involve attributing responsibility for one entity’s action to another entity. Here, the company is held responsible for something that it failed to do.

12%

If an individual █████ █ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███████████

This doesn’t involve attributing responsibility for one entity’s action to another entity. Here, the individual is responsible for something that she signed.

10%

If a newspaper █████████ █ ███████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████

This is the only answer that involves attributing responsibility for the substance (content) of something to another entity. Here, the content of the piece is attributed to the newspaper, because it published the piece, even though it didn’t write the piece. Similarly, the content of a contract is attributed to the court, because it enforces the contract, even though it didn’t create the contract.

66%

If a person ██ ██ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████

This doesn’t involve attributing responsibility for one entity’s action to another entity. Here, the individual is responsible for his failure to rescue someone.

If a company █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███ ███████████ █ ██████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███████ █ ██████ ██ ████ ████████

This doesn’t involve attributing responsibility for one entity’s action to another entity. Here, the company is responsible for taking action in response to something that it did.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 151 - Section 1 - Passage 1 - Question 4

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 151 - Section 1 - Passage 1 - Question 4

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?