Reitman v. Mulkey
Reitman v. Mulkey | |
---|---|
Holding | |
California Proposition 14 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas |
Concurrence | Douglas |
Dissent | Harlan, joined by Black, Clark, Stewart |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), was a
Background
In 1963, the
The act faced immediate protest after it was passed, and faced an initiative and referendum challenge; with opponents collecting over 600,000 signatures—well more than the 468,259 required to add the referendum to the ballot.[3] The referendum saw significant financial support from California's real-estate industry, with the California Real Estate Association and the Apartment House Owners Association leading the effort to rescind the law.[4] The "Committee for Home Protection" was initiated by the real-estate industry in the lead up to the laws challenge; looking to garner support with their slogan: "A man's home is his castle."[5]
The referendum, officially called
The referendum passed on November 3, 1964, with two-thirds of Californians voting to repeal the law. A legal challenge was then brought to Proposition 14 in the
Supreme Court
The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the California Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision. The Supreme Court focused on examining the constitutionality of § 26 in terms of its "immediate objective" its "ultimate effect" and its "historical context and the conditions existing prior to its enactment." The Court pointed to its decision in McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. that this was nothing less than considering a permissive state statute as an authorization to discriminate and as sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of that case. Therefore, the California Supreme Court was correct in holding that this amendment encouraged discrimination and thus violated the 14th Amendment.
This case can be compared to Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 where the court held that a statewide initiative that was designed primarily to put an end to a newly formed busing program in Seattle was unconstitutional. Thus collectively these cases stand for the proposition that, non-constitutionally required racially based desegregation programs may be repealed, must be repealed by the level of government that develops the program. That is a state can not change the rules just so that a municipality cannot institute a desegregation program.
See also
References
- ^ Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).
- . p. 25.
- ^ ISBN 978-0847697007.
- ISBN 978-0804738118.
- ^ David B. Oppenheimer; Golden Gate University Law School (October 7, 2010). "California 's Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Proposition 14, and the Constitutional Protection of Minority Rights: The Fiftieth Anniversary of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act". ggu.edu.
- University of Maryland School of Law. "California's Proposition 14 And The "State Action" Concept - Reitman v. Mulkey". umaryland.edu.
- ^ California Institute of Technology. "Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369" (PDF). caltech.edu=.
External links
- Text of Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Galloway Jr., Russell W. (1989). "Basic Equal Protection Analysis". Santa Clara Law Review. 29 (1). Retrieved February 8, 2021.