Shelley v. Kraemer held that the enforcement by a state court of a private racially restrictive covenant violates the Equal Protection Clause.

• A. Racially restrictive covenants are unconstitutional in all contexts.
• B. The enforcement by a state court of a private racially restrictive covenant violates the Equal Protection Clause.
• C. Only federal courts can rule on racial covenants.
• D. The decision does not involve the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer: (B)

State action is the central idea. The Equal Protection Clause applies to government actions, not private bias by individuals. In Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court held that when a state court enforces a private racially restrictive covenant, the state is using its power to carry out private discrimination. That involvement of the judiciary makes it state action, which the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits if it results in unequal treatment. So the enforcement by a state court of a private discriminatory covenant cannot stand under the Equal Protection Clause, even though the covenant itself is a private contract.

Private covenants aren’t declared unconstitutional in all contexts; the issue is the state’s role in enforcing them. The case did involve state courts, not only federal ones, and it involves the Fourteenth Amendment, not a denial of constitutional principles altogether.