Facts
- California enacted the Rumford Fair Housing Act (1963), restricting racial discrimination by certain housing-market actors.
- Opponents sponsored Proposition 14, adopted in 1964, adding Article I, § 26 to the California Constitution.
- Article I, § 26 provided that neither the State nor its agencies could “deny, limit or abridge” an owner’s right, in “absolute discretion,” to decline to sell, lease, or rent real property.
- A Black couple alleged a landlord refused to rent to them because of race and sued under California Civil Code §§ 51 and 52 for injunctive relief and damages.
- The landlord sought summary judgment, asserting §§ 51 and 52 were invalidated by Article I, § 26; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- The California Supreme Court reversed, holding § 26 invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it significantly involved the State in racial discrimination in housing.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether § 26 violated equal protection.
Issues
- Whether California’s Article I, § 26 (Proposition 14) constituted state action that significantly encouraged or involved the State in private racial discrimination in housing.
- Whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, a state may constitutionalize an owner’s discretion to discriminate in housing after the State previously restricted such discrimination.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court.
- The Court held that Article I, § 26 did more than repeal prior fair-housing protections; it authorized racial discrimination and made it a basic state policy.
- Because the amendment placed discriminatory refusals to sell or rent under express state constitutional authority, it significantly encouraged and involved the State in private discrimination.
- The Court gave substantial weight to the state high court’s assessment of the amendment’s purpose, context, and effects.
- Dissent: four Justices argued the amendment aimed at state neutrality by withdrawing regulation of private housing choices, which would not satisfy the state-action requirement.
Legal Principles
- The Equal Protection Clause is violated when a state measure significantly encourages and involves the State in private racial discrimination.
- State action may be found where the State affirmatively authorizes and protects discriminatory conduct, rather than merely refraining from regulating it.
- A state constitutional provision can be unconstitutional when it establishes a right to discriminate as a matter of state policy, especially in context and in effect.
Conclusion
The Court held that California’s Proposition 14 unconstitutionally involved the State in private housing discrimination by constitutionally authorizing and encouraging racial discrimination, thereby denying equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.