Lyndon B. Johnson · 1963-1969 term

Supreme Court holds that 42 U.S.C. 1982 bars private racial discrimination in property transactions in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.

In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., the Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. 1982 bars private as well as public racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property, and that Congress had authority under the Thirteenth Amendment to reach such conduct.

Latest reviewed action recorded: Jun 17, 1968

DeliveredHigh relevancePositiveOtherOfficialCourts / Housing / Civil RightsScoring-ready evidence
Share Card

Original Promise

In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., the Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. 1982 bars private as well as public racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property, and that Congress had authority under the Thirteenth Amendment to reach such conduct.

Action Timeline

Actions document what the federal government did. Outcomes below describe what changed, and each source list shows where the public record comes from.

Jun 17, 1968

Supreme Court decides Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.

Court-Related Action

The Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. 1982 protects Black purchasers against private racial discrimination in property transactions and that Congress could enforce that protection under the Thirteenth Amendment.

1 source linked

Outcomes

Outcomes are the part of the record that can contribute to public scoring. They stay visible here with impact direction and linked sources so readers can verify what shaped the record.

Housing Outcome

The Supreme Court recognized a federal cause of action against private racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property under 42 U.S.C. 1982.

PositiveDelivered

Measured or documented impact: The decision recognized a federal cause of action against private racial discrimination in the sale and rental of property under 42 U.S.C. 1982.

Black community impact: The ruling expanded the legal tools available to Black Americans challenging private housing discrimination, though discriminatory housing practices continued and the decision did not by itself create a comprehensive fair-housing enforcement system.

Evidence strength: Strong

Linked sources: 2

Was this helpful?

Tell us whether this page helped, and optionally leave a short note.

Responses are lightweight and do not require an account.