BUCHANAN V WARLEY 245 U.S 60 1917 BUCHANAN V WARLEY U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL CIVIL RIGHTS/EQUALITY U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT LEGISLATION REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION BY RACE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1914 THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY ENACTED A LAW THAT PROHIBITED BLACK PEOPLE AND WHITE PEOPLE FROM LIVING IN HOUSES ON RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS WHERE PERSONS OF THE OTHER RACE OCCUPIED THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES THE CITY ARGUED THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED TO PREVENT POTENTIAL RACIAL RIOTS THAT MIGHT OCCUR IF PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES LIVED ON THE SAME BLOCK TO TEST THE LAW A WHITE PERSON ARRANGED TO SELL A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO A BLACK BUYER THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED ON A BLOCK WHERE 8 OF 10 RESIDENCES WERE OCCUPIED BY WHITE PEOPLE THE SELLER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE SALE BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE CITY ORDINANCE THE SELLER SUED ARGUING THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON APRIL 10 11 1916 AND DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 5 1917 BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0 JUSTICE WILLIAM DAY SPOKE FOR THE COURT THE COURT RULED THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GAVE AFRICAN AMERICANS THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WITHOUT STATE LEGISLATION DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE THE COURT ALSO ARGUED THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT COULD NOT BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS LIFE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY FROM INVASION BY THE STATES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE MERE THING WHICH A PERSON OWNS IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT IT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE USE AND DISPOSE OF IT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THESE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF PROPERTY AS WE HAVE SEEN THIS COURT HAS HELD LAWS VALID WHICH SEPARATED THE RACES ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS IN PUBLIC CONVEYANCES MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND COURTS OF HIGH AUTHORITY HAVE HELD ENACTMENTS LAWFUL WHICH PROVIDE FOR SEPARATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF WHITE AND COLORED PUPILS WHERE EQUAL PRIVILEGES ARE GIVEN BUT IN VIEW OF THE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION SUCH LEGISLATION MUST HAVE ITS LIMITATIONS AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WHERE THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION WE THINK THESE LIMITATIONS ARE EXCEEDED IN LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF THE CHARACTER NOW BEFORE US
