Yes, this breaks the U.S. Constitution. The Court said California's new rule was illegal. It wasn't just getting rid of old laws that protected people from discrimination. By putting this 'right to refuse anyone' into their most important law book, California was basically saying discrimination is okay and even encouraged. This is like the state giving people permission and protection to be racist when renting or selling homes. That's not allowed because the government has to treat everyone equally and can't help people discriminate.

No, this doesn't break the Constitution. Some judges disagreed and said California was just choosing to stay out of it. They thought California was simply canceling its old laws against discrimination, which states are allowed to do. The Constitution doesn't force states to have laws against discrimination in the first place. The new rule doesn't make anyone discriminate - it just lets people make their own choices about their property without the government getting involved.

Yes, this breaks the Constitution. One judge agreed it was illegal but for a different reason. He said that housing isn't really just a private thing because the government controls it through things like zoning rules and licenses for real estate agents. When the state passes a law that lets these licensed people discriminate, it's like the government is helping to keep neighborhoods separated by race, which is against the law.

No, it's not okay. The highest court in California was right to say that Proposition 14 was not allowed. This law did more than just get rid of old rules against unfair treatment. It actually gave people a right to discriminate based on race when selling or renting homes. This means California was too involved in allowing racial discrimination, which is not allowed by the Constitution.

The majority's decision is not supported by the facts or by previous cases about the Fourteenth Amendment. Proposition 14 doesn't actually require California to do anything to enforce discrimination. The Court's idea that California is encouraging discrimination could mean that any time a state allows private discrimination, it's unconstitutional. This decision might make it harder for laws to deal with race issues and interferes with California's democratic process on an issue not clearly answered by the Constitution.

Proposition 14 is a sneaky way for California to allow discrimination in housing by letting private groups do what the government isn't allowed to do directly. The real estate industry, which is licensed by the state, works to keep neighborhoods segregated. When a state lets this discriminatory behavior happen through private groups it has licensed, it becomes an action of the state that violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Housing in cities is a public issue, and the real estate business must serve everyone without discrimination.

In determining whether the law significantly involves the State in private discrimination the court must

—the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed a decision of the California Supreme Court which held that an article of the California Constitution violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Court sustained the holding of the Supreme Court of California that the amendment, on examination of its "constitutionality... in terms of its `immediate objective,'its `ultimate effect'and its `historical context and conditions existing prior to its enactment,'"

—an amendment to the California State Constitution, Proposition 14, which banned the State from imposing any limitation on the right of a person to dispose of his real property.

—the Supreme Court found that state action existed when private housing discrimination was authorized by a provision of the California constitution.

Our holdings indicate that where the impetus for the discrimination is private, the State must have "significantly involved itself with invidious discriminations,"

However, the court in Benschoter noted that: "The courts have never attempted the impossible task of formulating an infallible test for determining whether the state in any of its manifestations has become significantly involved in private conduct

A citizendriven amendment to a state constitution permitting racial discrimination in the sale or lease of private real property added within a year of the state legislature enacting statutes banning racially restrictive covenants on real property, for example, would suggest that racial animus motivated the amendment.

—based its "state action" ruling on the fact that the California constitutional provision "was intended to authorize, and does authorize, racial discrimination in the housing market."

—striking down California's Proposition 14 of 1964 which sought to restrict the state government's ability to enact fair-housing laws

Yes, the provision violates the Equal Protection Clause. A state constitutional provision that authorizes and encourages private racial discrimination in housing constitutes significant state involvement and is therefore unconstitutional. The Court deferred to the California Supreme Court's finding that Proposition 14's intent and effect went beyond a mere repeal of existing statutes. By enshrining the right to discriminate in the state's constitution, California made that right a basic policy of the state, immune from legislative or executive correction. This affirmative act significantly encouraged private discrimination, transforming private conduct into state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. Unlike a simple legislative repeal, this constitutional provision provides express authority and a shield for those practicing racial discrimination, thereby involving the state in the discriminatory conduct.

No, the provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The amendment is a neutral provision that merely repeals prior state anti-discrimination laws and returns the state to a position of neutrality regarding private housing decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to enact fair housing laws, and therefore, it does not prohibit them from repealing such laws. The majority's 'encouragement' theory is a dangerous and ill-defined standard that could unconstitutionally federalize any area where a state chooses not to regulate private conduct. The provision does not compel discrimination; it merely permits private individuals to exercise their own choices, which is not state action.

Yes, the provision violates the Equal Protection Clause. Urban housing is not a purely private domain; it is deeply affected with a public interest and regulated by the state through zoning laws and the licensing of real estate brokers. When the state enacts a provision like Proposition 14, it effectively sanctions and allows these state-licensed actors to perform a public function—zoning and shaping communities—in a discriminatory manner. This delegation of a governmental function to private parties who practice racial discrimination constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, akin to the restrictive covenants struck down in Shelley v. Kraemer.

Yes. The California Supreme Court correctly determined that Art. I, § 26 of the California Constitution involves the State in private racial discriminations to an unconstitutional degree. This is because the provision does more than repeal existing anti-discrimination laws; it establishes a constitutional right to discriminate, significantly encouraging and involving the State in private racial discrimination. The Court's analysis focused on the 'immediate objective,' 'ultimate effect,' and 'historical context and conditions existing prior to its enactment' of the amendment, concluding that it was motivated by racial animus and intended to authorize and does authorize racial discrimination in the housing market.

The majority's decision is not supported by the facts found by the California Supreme Court or by past Fourteenth Amendment cases. Section 26 is neutral on its face and requires no affirmative enforcement by the state. The Court's 'encouragement' theory could mean that any state permission of private discrimination is unconstitutional state action. This decision may hinder legislative attempts to deal with race relations and unwisely interferes with California's democratic process on a matter left open by the Federal Constitution.

Proposition 14 is a form of sophisticated discrimination whereby California harnesses the energies of private groups to indirectly discriminate in housing, which the government cannot do directly under the Constitution. The real estate industry, which is state-licensed, is dedicated to maintaining segregated communities and engages in zoning along racial lines. When a state allows this discriminatory function to be performed by licensed private agencies, it becomes state action violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Urban housing is affected with a public interest, and the real estate business must serve all without discrimination.

Reitman v. Mulkey

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot