## Facts

- Darryl O. Mason, an African-American Ohio resident, sued the recorders of Ohio’s counties (and certain related officials) over land-title records containing racially restrictive covenants recorded in the early-to-mid 20th century.
- The county recorders maintained and provided public access to recorded instruments (e.g., deeds and restrictive covenants) as part of their statutory record-keeping duties under Ohio law.
- Mason alleged that many instruments in public records contained covenants restricting ownership or occupancy to white persons or excluding racial minorities.
- Mason did not allege that the covenants had been enforced in modern times.
- Mason claimed the continued public availability of these instruments discouraged him and others from purchasing property in certain neighborhoods and created feelings of exclusion; he also alleged the covenants clouded affected titles.
- Mason sought injunctive relief requiring recorders to stop providing such documents and to remove or redact the offending language.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of Article III standing.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of deterrence from purchasing property and emotional harm from the public availability of racially restrictive covenants in land records constitute a concrete, particularized injury-in-fact.
2. Whether any alleged injury was fairly traceable to county recorders who preserve and provide access to historical instruments.
3. Whether the requested injunction was likely to redress the alleged injury given recorders’ statutory duties and lack of authority to alter recorded documents.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of Article III standing.
- The court held Mason failed to plead a concrete and particularized injury distinct from a generalized grievance.
- The court held any alleged harm was not fairly traceable to the recorders’ ministerial maintenance of historical records.
- The court held the requested relief was not likely to redress the alleged harm because recorders lacked statutory authority to edit or redact recorded instruments.
- A concurrence agreed Mason lacked standing while addressing the continuing harms associated with racially restrictive covenants and limits on judicial relief against record-keeping officials.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, not abstract offense, generalized emotional distress, or deterrence untethered to a specific, individualized harm.
- Standing also requires causation: the injury must be fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct, not merely to historical acts by third parties.
- Standing requires redressability: the requested relief must be likely to remedy the alleged injury; relief is not redressable where defendants lack legal authority to implement the ordered changes.
- When officials act in a statutorily constrained, ministerial record-keeping role, challenges seeking alteration of official records face heightened causation and redressability obstacles.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because Mason did not plausibly allege an Article III injury-in-fact, and any asserted harms were neither fairly traceable to county recorders’ statutory record-maintenance functions nor likely to be remedied by an injunction requiring redaction or removal of recorded instruments the recorders lacked authority to modify.


Mason v. Adams Cnty. Recorder, 901 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2018)