| Reitman v. Mulkey | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 20–21, 1967 Decided May 29, 1967 | |
| Full case name | Reitman v. Mulkey |
| Citations | 387 U.S. 369 (more) 87 S. Ct. 1627; 18 L. Ed. 2d 830; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1324 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal.2d 529, 50 Cal.Rptr. 881, 413 P.2d 825 (1966); cert. granted, 385 U.S. 967 (1966). |
| Holding | |
| California Proposition 14 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Warren, Brennan, Fortas, Douglas |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Black, Clark, Stewart |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
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.[1]