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.
The Shelly decision argues that while the contracts are between private actors, the enforcement of them is state action and therefore unconstitutional.
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.
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.
The author never argues that other courts “should” refrain from appealing to Shelley v. Kraemer. Although the author does note that other courts have refrained from applying the rationale of the decision, this isn’t the same as a recommendation that courts shouldn’t rely on the decision.
The author never argues that something in an agreement should be included in a statute. Although the author notes that the substance of an agreement might be illegal if it were part of a statute, that’s a separate issue from whether something in an agreement should be part of a statute.
The author never argues that we should take measures to prevent racially restrictive covenants. Although it’s clear the author thinks racially restrictive covenants are undesirable, the author’s argument in the passage doesn’t involve a claim about what we should do about continuing practices of racially restrictive covenants.
This principle is used by the author at the end of P3. The author cites to the fact that later courts have not applied Shelley’s rationale as part of support for the argument that Shelley’s rationale is problematic.
The author never argues that the Court should offer a new rationale for the decision in Shelley. Although it’s clear the author does think that the Court, when it was deciding Shelley, should have used a different rationale, this isn’t the same as thinking that the Court should support the decision in Shelley with a new rationale now that people find its existing rationale controversial.
Difficulty
49% of people who answer get this correct
This is a very difficult question.
It is significantly harder than the average question in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%150
161
75%172
Analysis
Implied
Principle or generalization
Critique or debate
Law
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
7%
160
b
12%
157
c
25%
157
d
49%
163
e
7%
157
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.