Hunter v. Erickson

Supreme Court of United States
393 U.S. 385 (1969)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state or its political subdivision may not amend its law-making process to place special burdens on racial and religious minorities, thereby making it more difficult for that group to enact protective legislation, as doing so violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

In 1964, the Akron City Council passed a fair housing ordinance to prohibit discrimination in housing transactions.
Nellie Hunter, a Negro citizen, attempted to purchase a home in Akron.
A real estate agent informed Hunter that she could not be shown certain houses because the owners had specified they did not want their houses shown to Negroes.
The voters of Akron amended the city charter to add Section 137.
Section 137 required that any ordinance regulating real estate transactions on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry must be approved by a majority of voters in a referendum before it could become effective.
This charter amendment suspended the existing 1964 fair housing ordinance unless and until it was approved by the voters.
When Hunter tried to file a complaint under the 1964 ordinance, city officials informed her that it was no longer effective due to the new charter amendment.

Procedural Posture:

Nellie Hunter filed an action in an Ohio trial court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Akron city officials to enforce the city's fair housing ordinance.
The trial court initially held parts of the ordinance invalid under state law.
On appeal by Hunter, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the trial court's decision.
On remand, the trial court held that the fair housing ordinance was rendered ineffective by the new charter amendment, Section 137.
Hunter appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the charter amendment was not unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a city charter amendment that singles out ordinances regulating housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin for a mandatory public referendum, while other housing ordinances are not subject to this requirement, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice White

Yes. The city charter amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause because it creates an explicit racial classification within the governmental process. While facially neutral, the amendment's impact falls on minorities by placing a special, substantial burden on them that is not imposed on other groups seeking to enact legislation. By requiring a referendum only for laws addressing racial or religious housing discrimination, Akron made it significantly more difficult for minorities to seek legal protection. Such racial classifications are constitutionally suspect and subject to the most rigid scrutiny, and Akron failed to provide a sufficient justification for this discriminatory legislative structure.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan

Yes. The charter amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not based on a neutral, general principle but has the clear purpose of making it more difficult for racial and religious minorities to achieve legislation in their interest. While states can structure their political processes through neutral means like a general referendum applicable to all issues, this amendment specifically targets racial and religious issues. Akron already had a neutral referendum process available if 10% of voters petitioned. This targeted amendment, which lacks a legitimate state interest, is therefore discriminatory on its face and cannot withstand the heavy burden of justification required.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black

No. The city charter amendment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because there is no constitutional provision preventing a state or city from repealing its own laws. The Court's decision incorrectly uses the Equal Protection Clause to prevent the people of Akron from exercising their democratic right to vote on and repeal legislation. Conditioning the enactment of a law on a majority vote of the people is the foundation of a democratic government, not a constitutional violation. The Court is overstepping its authority by substituting its own policy preferences for the will of the voters.

Analysis:

This decision established the 'political process doctrine,' which holds that the Equal Protection Clause protects not only against discriminatory laws but also against discriminatory structures in the law-making process itself. The ruling prevents the majority from using mechanisms like referendums to rig the legislative process against minorities seeking to pass protective civil rights legislation. It clarifies that even a facially neutral law can be unconstitutional if it restructures the political process to place unique burdens on a specific, suspect class. This principle significantly impacts how courts analyze voter-led initiatives that target civil rights protections.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hunter v. Erickson (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature