Does redlining still happen?
My home state of Minnesota is the epicenter of the national conversation around racial injustice and police brutality. Growing up in a predominantly white suburb, these are realities that I didn’t fully interact with nor comprehend until attending college. Now, living back at home, I have the opportunity to apply what I learned in college, and what I’m continuing to learn now, to the communities that I grew up in.
What are racially restrictive covenants?
A property deed is a legal document used to transfer ownership of property. It contains information about the parties involved in the transaction, a description of the property, and other information. Property deeds can contain restrictive covenants, which prohibit the owner of the property from using their land for a certain purpose or activity.
In the twentieth century, property deeds in cities like St. Louis, Seattle, and Washington D.C. often included racially restrictive covenants— a line of text stipulating that the property could not be sold to people who are not white. For example, a racial covenant written in 1938, pertaining to a property in north Minneapolis, stated that the property, “shall not be sold, mortgaged, leased to or occupied by any person or persons other than members of the Caucasian race.” In south Minneapolis, a racial covenant written in 1921 states that the property, “shall not any time be conveyed, mortgaged or leased to any person or persons of Chinese, Japanese, Moorish, Turkish, Negro, Mongolian or African blood or descent.” In Edina, Minnesota, a racial covenant written in 1918 simply stated that the, “grantee can not sell or lease said real estate to a colored person.” These covenants were an agreement between seller and buyer that the property would not be sold to or occupied by non-white residents in the future.
Mapping Prejudice, a project begun at the University of Minnesota, shows where racially restrictive covenants were used in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. As the project’s map shows, racial covenants were commonly enacted in and around Minneapolis during the first half of the twentieth century.
The Supreme Court’s rulings on racial covenants
Racially restrictive covenants are clearly discriminatory. But what does the law say about such restrictions on property ownership? Supreme Court jurisprudence is limited but telling on this topic.
Corrigan v. Buckley (1926)
In Corrigan v. Buckley, brought before the Supreme Court in 1926, several residents with adjacent property in Washington, D.C. had signed a racial covenant agreeing that they would not sell their land to an African American for twenty-one years. The case was dismissed because the Court determined that there was not a constitutional question present. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that, “No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Because the racial covenant was a private agreement between two parties, and the state was not involved in enforcing the discriminatory practice, the Fourteenth Amendment’s restrictions on state actions did not apply in Corrigan.
The Court’s decision set a precedent upholding these discriminatory covenants in Washington D.C. and encouraged their adoption in cities around the country.
Hansberry v. Lee (1940)
This case is famous for its contribution to civil procedure. In terms of racial covenants, Hansberry v. Lee concerned an agreement between some residents of Chicago’s Woodlawn neighborhood to disallow African Americans from owning or leasing land in the area. Because not all of the landowners in the neighborhood supported the racially restrictive covenant, a previous court decision upholding the covenant did not stand due to this violation of civil procedure. The Court did not touch the constitutionality of such racially restrictive covenants in its decision.
Notably, the petitioner in this case, Carl Augustus Hansberry, is the father of Lorraine Hansberry, author of A Raisin in the Sun. This Broadway play tells the story of a Black family battling poverty, racism and segregation in south Chicago.
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
In 1948, cases concerning racially restrictive covenants from St. Louis, Missouri and Detroit, Michigan reached the Supreme Court on appeal. The Court consolidated these cases in Shelley v. Kraemer. In deciding this case, the Court asked whether these covenants violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court ruled that racially restrictive covenants were not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because the Fourteenth Amendment governs the actions of states and does apply to private agreements. In his opinion, Chief Justice Fred Vinson wrote, “We conclude, therefore, that the restrictive agreements, standing alone, cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment. So long as the purposes of those agreements are effectuated by voluntary adherence to their terms, it would appear clear that there has been no action by the State, and the provisions of the Amendment have not been violated.”
Because the racially restrictive covenants were a private agreement, rather than a state action, they did not fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s restrictions on states. However, the Court did rule that enforcement of such covenants by courts is unconstitutional state action. Specifically, the Court held that, “in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws, and that, therefore, the action of the state courts cannot stand. “
With this decision, the Supreme Court prohibited the enforcement of such racially restrictive covenants, but did not outlaw the existence of these private agreements.
The Fair Housing Act, passed by Congress in 1968, made discrimination in housing illegal.
The lasting effects of racial covenants
In Minnesota, racial segregation is real. Mapping Prejudice demonstrates the concentration of African American communities as racial covenants became more common in Minneapolis between 1910 and 1940. The map below shows the correlation between past existence of racial covenants in Minnesota and current housing patterns.
In Edina, a southwest suburb of Minneapolis, home buyers in the Country Club neighborhood, built between 1924 and 1944, had to agree that they would not sell their home to a non-white buyer. Non-whites were not allowed to live in this neighborhood unless they were domestic servants.
Minnesota isn’t alone. These clauses were common in property deeds of properties in and around Seattle and in St. Louis.
Racial covenants are one element of racism in housing and public services. Redlining is the refusal to insure mortgages and the denial of other services to certain communities. These practices also contributed to racial segregation in American cities.
Racial covenants, and the racial segregation that they encouraged, don’t just restrict where Blacks and other minorities live. Where one lives can determine access to resources, quality of education, and environmental hazards.
And today, Minneapolis has one of the lowest Black homeownership rates in the country.
*****
Near the end of his decision in Shelley v. Kraemer, Chief Justice Vinzon reminds us of the historical and modern importance of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The historical context in which the Fourteenth Amendment became a part of the Constitution should not be forgotten. Whatever else the framers sought to achieve, it is clear that the matter of primary concern was the establishment of equality in the enjoyment of basic civil and political rights and the preservation of those rights from discriminatory action on the part of the States based on considerations of race or color.”
I was shocked to learn that a property just a few blocks from my family’s home used to contain a racially restrictive covenant in its deed. For many, learning of police brutality and systemic racism in Minnesota was surprising given our state’s reputation for progressive politics and the idea of “Minnesota Nice.” However, as racial covenants written a century ago and the killing of George Floyd less than three weeks ago demonstrate, systemic racism is both a historical and current problem in Minnesota.
- College Football, Ariana Grande, and Water - September 3, 2023
- Livestock and Land Use: How Are We Feeding The Planet? Impactfull April 2022 - April 19, 2022
- What Does Voluntourism Look Like? A Case Study in a Cambodian Orphanage - March 28, 2022