InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Reitman et al. v. Mulkey et al.

Set an important legal precedent that held that a state could not authorize invidious discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing discriminatory private decisions.

387 U.S. 369 · No. 483 · 1966 term · Warren Court

Decided May 29, 1967 · argued Mar 20, 1967

Civil rights · Desegregation

Struck down a state law

Majority opinion: Byron White

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Affirmed. Reitman et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the California Supreme Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Reitman et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that held that a state could not authorize invidious discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing discriminatory private decisions. Thus, the state constitutional amendment by referendum purporting to authorize landlord freedom was unconstitutional.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1966 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasFortasWarrenBrennanBlackWhiteClarkStewartHarlan

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Reitman et al.Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
Respondent
Mulkey et al.Tenant or lessee
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. May 29, 1967DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Reitman et al. lost.
  2. Mar 20, 1967ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the California Supreme Court: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

71 other argued cases since 1946 on desegregation, newest first.

  1. Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media140 S. Ct. 1009Mar 23, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1009Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  2. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.576 U.S. 519Jun 25, 2015 · 576 U.S. 519Civil rights5–45–4 band

  3. Allen Snyder v. Louisiana552 U.S. 472Mar 19, 2008 · 552 U.S. 472Civil rights7–27–2 band

  4. Jay Shawn Johnson v. California545 U.S. 162Jun 13, 2005 · 545 U.S. 162Civil rights8–18–1 band

  5. Garrison S. Johnson v. California et al.543 U.S. 499Feb 23, 2005 · 543 U.S. 499Civil rights6–27–2 band

  6. City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, et al. v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation et al.538 U.S. 188Mar 25, 2003 · 538 U.S. 188Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  7. David Meyer, Individually and in His Capacity As President and Designated Officer/Broker of Triad, Inc., etc. v. Emma Mary Ellen Holley, et vir, et al.537 U.S. 280Jan 22, 2003 · 537 U.S. 280Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  8. Terry Campbell v. Louisiana523 U.S. 392Apr 21, 1998 · 523 U.S. 392Civil rights7–27–2 band
  9. Georgia v. Thomas McCollum, William Joseph McCollum and Ella Hampton McCollum505 U.S. 42Jun 18, 1992 · 505 U.S. 42Civil rights7–27–2 band

  10. Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc.500 U.S. 614Jun 3, 1991 · 500 U.S. 614Civil rights6–36–3 band

  11. Dionisio Hernandez v. New York500 U.S. 352May 28, 1991 · 500 U.S. 352Civil rights6–36–3 band

  12. Powers v. Ohio499 U.S. 400Apr 1, 1991 · 499 U.S. 400Civil rights7–27–2 band

  13. Batson v. KentuckyLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity476 U.S. 79Apr 30, 1986 · 476 U.S. 79Civil rights7–27–2 band

  14. Vasquez, Warden v. Hillery474 U.S. 254Jan 14, 1986 · 474 U.S. 254Civil rights6–36–3 band

  15. Hobby v. United States468 U.S. 339Jul 2, 1984 · 468 U.S. 339Civil rights6–36–3 band
  16. Palmore v. Sidoti466 U.S. 429Apr 24, 1984 · 466 U.S. 429Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  17. City of Memphis et al. v. Greene et al.451 U.S. 100Apr 20, 1981 · 451 U.S. 100Civil rights6–36–3 band
  18. Castaneda, Sheriff v. Partida430 U.S. 482Mar 23, 1977 · 430 U.S. 482Civil rights5–45–4 band
  19. Village of Arlington Heights et al. v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. et al.429 U.S. 252Jan 11, 1977 · 429 U.S. 252Civil rights5–36–3 band

  20. Hills, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development v. Gautreaux et al.425 U.S. 284Apr 20, 1976 · 425 U.S. 284Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  21. Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League et al.415 U.S. 605Mar 25, 1974 · 415 U.S. 605Civil rights5–45–4 band
  22. Tillman et al. v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., Inc., et al.410 U.S. 431Feb 27, 1973 · 410 U.S. 431Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  23. Peters v. Kiff, Warden407 U.S. 493Jun 22, 1972 · 407 U.S. 493Civil rights6–36–3 band
  24. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis et al.407 U.S. 163Jun 12, 1972 · 407 U.S. 163Civil rights6–36–3 band

  25. Alexander v. Louisiana405 U.S. 625Apr 3, 1972 · 405 U.S. 625Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  26. Palmer et al. v. Thompson, Mayor of the City of Jackson, et al.403 U.S. 217Jun 14, 1971 · 403 U.S. 217Civil rights5–45–4 band
  27. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.398 U.S. 144Jun 1, 1970 · 398 U.S. 144Civil rights5–27–2 band

  28. Evans et al. v. Abney et al.396 U.S. 435Jan 26, 1970 · 396 U.S. 435Civil rights5–27–2 band
  29. Turner et al. v. Fouche et al.396 U.S. 346Jan 19, 1970 · 396 U.S. 346Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  30. Carter et al. v. Jury Commission of Greene County et al.396 U.S. 320Jan 19, 1970 · 396 U.S. 320Civil rights7–18–1 band
  31. Sullivan et al. v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., et al.396 U.S. 229Dec 15, 1969 · 396 U.S. 229Civil rights5–36–3 band
  32. Daniel et al. v. Paul395 U.S. 298Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 298Civil rights7–18–1 band
  33. Hunter v. Erickson, Mayor of Akron, et al.393 U.S. 385Jan 20, 1969 · 393 U.S. 385Civil rights8–18–1 band

  34. Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. et al.Landmark · Power of Congress to enforce civil rights392 U.S. 409Jun 17, 1968 · 392 U.S. 409Civil rights7–27–2 band

  35. United States v. Johnson et al.390 U.S. 563Apr 8, 1968 · 390 U.S. 563Civil rights5–36–3 band
  36. Anderson v. Johnson, Warden390 U.S. 456Mar 25, 1968 · 390 U.S. 456Civil rights4–45–4 band
  37. Lee, Commissioner of Corrections of Alabama, et al. v. Washington et al.390 U.S. 333Mar 11, 1968 · 390 U.S. 333Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  38. Loving et ux. v. VirginiaLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity388 U.S. 1Jun 12, 1967 · 388 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  39. Bostick v. South Carolina et al.386 U.S. 479Mar 27, 1967 · 386 U.S. 479Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  40. Whitus et al. v. Georgia385 U.S. 545Jan 23, 1967 · 385 U.S. 545Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  41. Evans et al. v. Newton et al.382 U.S. 296Jan 17, 1966 · 382 U.S. 296Civil rights6–36–3 band
  42. Swain v. Alabama380 U.S. 202Mar 8, 1965 · 380 U.S. 202Civil rights6–36–3 band
  43. Katzenbach, Acting Attorney General, et al. v. McClung et al.Landmark · Power of Congress to enforce civil rights379 U.S. 294Dec 14, 1964 · 379 U.S. 294Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  44. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity · Power of Congress to enforce civil rights379 U.S. 241Dec 14, 1964 · 379 U.S. 241Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  45. McLaughlin et al. v. Florida379 U.S. 184Dec 7, 1964 · 379 U.S. 184Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  46. Coleman v. Alabama377 U.S. 129May 4, 1964 · 377 U.S. 129Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  47. Arnold et al. v. North Carolina376 U.S. 773Apr 6, 1964 · 376 U.S. 773Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  48. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham.376 U.S. 339Mar 9, 1964 · 376 U.S. 339Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  49. Watson et al. v. City of Memphis et al.373 U.S. 526May 27, 1963 · 373 U.S. 526Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  50. Turner v. City of Memphis et al.369 U.S. 350Mar 16, 1962 · 369 U.S. 350Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  51. Anderson v. Alabama.366 U.S. 208May 1, 1961 · 366 U.S. 208Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  52. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority et al.365 U.S. 715Apr 17, 1961 · 365 U.S. 715Civil rights6–36–3 band

  53. Wolfe et al. v. North Carolina364 U.S. 177Jun 27, 1960 · 364 U.S. 177Civil rights5–45–4 band

  54. Eubanks v. Louisiana356 U.S. 584May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 584Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  55. Michel v. Louisiana350 U.S. 91Dec 5, 1955 · 350 U.S. 91Civil rights6–36–3 band
  56. Reece v. Georgia350 U.S. 85Dec 5, 1955 · 350 U.S. 85Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  57. Williams v. Georgia349 U.S. 375Jun 6, 1955 · 349 U.S. 375Civil rights6–36–3 band
  58. Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. et al.348 U.S. 880Nov 15, 1954 · 348 U.S. 880Civil rights4–45–4 band
  59. Hernandez v. TexasLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity347 U.S. 475May 3, 1954 · 347 U.S. 475Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  60. Barrows et al. v. Jackson346 U.S. 249Jun 15, 1953 · 346 U.S. 249Civil rights6–18–1 band
  61. District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc.346 U.S. 100Jun 8, 1953 · 346 U.S. 100Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  62. Avery v. Georgia345 U.S. 559May 25, 1953 · 345 U.S. 559Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  63. Shepherd et al. v. Florida341 U.S. 50Apr 9, 1951 · 341 U.S. 50Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  64. Henderson v. United States et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity339 U.S. 816Jun 5, 1950 · 339 U.S. 816Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  65. Cassell v. Texas339 U.S. 282Apr 24, 1950 · 339 U.S. 282Civil rights7–18–1 band
  66. Hurd et ux. v. Hodge et al.334 U.S. 24May 3, 1948 · 334 U.S. 24Civil rights6–0Unanimous band
  67. Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity334 U.S. 1May 3, 1948 · 334 U.S. 1Civil rights6–0Unanimous band

  68. Moore et al. v. New York333 U.S. 565Mar 29, 1948 · 333 U.S. 565Civil rights5–45–4 band
  69. Bob-Lo Excursion Co. v. Michigan333 U.S. 28Feb 2, 1948 · 333 U.S. 28Civil rights7–27–2 band
  70. Oyama et al. v. California332 U.S. 633Jan 19, 1948 · 332 U.S. 633Civil rights6–36–3 band

  71. Patton v. Mississippi332 U.S. 463Dec 8, 1947 · 332 U.S. 463Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.