## Facts

- Shaare Tefila Congregation, a Jewish synagogue in Silver Spring, Maryland, was vandalized on November 2, 1982.
- The exterior walls were spray-painted with anti-Semitic slogans, phrases, and symbols.
- The congregation and several members alleged the vandals were white individuals motivated by anti-Jewish animus.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3), plus state-law tort claims.
- The federal claims were premised on the theory that the desecration constituted racially discriminatory interference with property rights, particularly under § 1982.

## Issues

1. Whether Jewish plaintiffs may state a claim of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 when both plaintiffs and defendants may be classified as “white” under contemporary racial categories.
2. Whether § 1982’s protection extends to groups targeted because of ancestry or ethnic characteristics as those groups were understood when the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that Jews can state a claim of racial discrimination under § 1982.
- The Court rejected the view that § 1982 cannot reach discrimination where both parties are considered “white” today, because the statute’s coverage depends on the type of group targeted, as understood in 1866.
- The Court concluded the complaint sufficiently alleged intentional discrimination against Jews through desecration of a synagogue with anti-Semitic markings.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1982 claim requires allegations not only of discriminatory animus, but that the animus was directed at a group Congress intended to protect when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
- For § 1982, “race” is interpreted in light of 19th-century understandings, which treated various ancestry-based and ethnic groups as distinct “races” or “peoples.”
- Section 1982 protects identifiable classes subjected to intentional discrimination because of ancestry or ethnic characteristics, even if modern classifications place the parties in the same broad racial category.
- Jews fall within § 1982’s protected classes because they were among the groups considered distinct races at the time of enactment, making anti-Jewish discrimination actionable as racial discrimination under the statute.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1982 reaches discrimination against Jews because the statute, rooted in the 1866 Act, protects groups targeted for ancestry or ethnic characteristics as historically understood, and it therefore permits a claim for intentional anti-Jewish interference with property rights.


Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987)