POLS+353+f10+Brief+of+Reitman+v.+Mulkey

//Rietman v. Mulkey// 387 U.S. 369 S.CT. (1967)

__Facts__ Racism was alive and well in California in the 60s. The Rumford Fair Housing Act (Sec 51/52) was passed in California; it prohibited "racial discriminations in the sale or rental of any private dwelling containing more than four units." After that, Proposition 14 was enacted by California voters. It amended the California constitution. Prop 14 said: ""Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses." (hereinafter "Sec 26") This was placed into the California Constitution. Prop 14 indirectly nullified the Rumford Act and constitutionalized (in Cali) the right to racially discriminate when selling/renting property.

__Procedural Posture of Case __ Mulkey ("Defendants") sued Reitman ("Plaintiff") in state court. Defendant claimed Plaintiff refused to rent to them because of their race. Plaintiff motioned for summary summary judgement; the trial court granted the motion. Defendant lost and took the case the Cali Supreme Court, which overturned the decision of the trial court. The Cali Supreme Court held that Sec 26 violated the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Plaintiff in this case, who lost in the Cali Supreme Court, appealed that judgement to the US Supreme Court ("the Court").

__ Holding __ The Court AFFIRMED the judgement of the Cali Supreme Court.

__Issues__ 1. Does Sec 26 violate Equal Protection Clause ("EPC") of the US Constitution?

2. What role does the State of Cali play in discrimination under Sec 26?

3. How did the status of racial discrimination change after the passage of Sec 26?

__Rationale__ Justice White, who delivered the opinion of the Court, agreed with the Rationale of the Cali Supreme Court. The Rumford Act prohibited discrimination. However, Prop 14 didn't only repeal that Act, but it made racial discrimination in property sales/rentals CONSTITUTIONALLY acceptable in Cali. Prop 14 was not mere statute; it was constitutional law in Cali; it embodied racial discrimination in the "State's basic character". So in theory, a Cali renter/real estate broker could appeal right to the Cali Constitution if they chose to racially discriminate; trial judges, executive officials (e.g. cops), and legislatures would all have to stand by while the discrimination took place. The Cali Supreme Court, with which J. White agrees, believes that Prop 14 will "involve the State in private racial discriminations to an unconstitutional degree. White directs attention to several other cases in which the Court identified State-sanctioned discrimination:
 * 1) Case where STATE statute mandated that a railroad company had to accommodate whites, but not blacks
 * The Court noted that this statute would have been invalid under the 14th amendment had it not been dismissed on a "procedural ground"
 * Statute invalid under 14th
 * 1) Case where State gave the executives of political parties to make voter qualifications. So, the political party could say, "black people can't vote for people in our party." And that's just what happened; the state-vested power was used to discriminated.
 * state was sucked into a private discriminatory decision because they were the one that granted the open power to the political parties
 * contrary the 14th Amendment
 * 1) Case where a restaurant manager in a state building wouldn't serve African Americans. This gentlemen was backed by the state; the state was silent in the face of his discriminatory practices. Such silence, again, "made the state a party" in the discrimination.
 * 2) Case where there was an ordinance in place that essentially made segregation legal. The so-called upshot was that if an African American was caught "trespassing" the state couldn't punish him/her for that crime. The statute itself seemed to support segregation.
 * 3) Case where New Orleans city officials made a public announcement that it was not permitted for blacks to seek desegregated service. The Court treated these announcements as having "as much coercive potential" as a statute.

These cases all have a common thread. In one way or another, the State is drawn into private but racially discriminatory decisions. It would seem //Rietman v. Mulkey// shares this commonality. Prop 14 did not merely repeal the Rumford Act; mere repeal would have made racial discrimination "neutral" (sorry, but for lack of a better word) in the Cali housing market; racial discrimination wouldn't have been outright acceptable. But instead, Prop 14 "AUTHORIZED" racial discrimination; it made racial discrimination in the housing market acceptable as a matter of Cali constitutional law. Hence, like in the 5 mentioned cases, the state is being sucked into individual discriminatory decisions. Such state involvement, according to Justice White, is a 14th Amendment (US Constitution) no-no.

(Nick Flores 11/20)