Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1940

Hansberry v. Lee

311 U.S. 32 | 61 S. Ct. 115 | 85 L. Ed. 22 | 1940 U.S. LEXIS 108 | 132 A.L.R. 741

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an absent person may be bound by a class judgment only when the named parties adequately represent that person’s aligned interests; a prior suit enforcing a racially restrictive covenant could not bind owners seeking to challenge the covenant’s validity.

Background

A group of Chicago landowners entered a restrictive covenant providing that property within a defined area could not be sold, leased, or occupied by Black persons. The agreement was to become effective only if owners of 95 percent of the area’s frontage signed it.

In an earlier suit, Burke v. Kleiman, one landowner sought to enforce the agreement against several named owners. The parties stipulated that the 95-percent condition had been met, and the Illinois court held the covenant valid and enforceable. That stipulation was later found to be untrue: only about 54 percent of the frontage had signed.

The respondents later sued the Hansberrys, who were Black and had acquired and occupied property in the restricted area, seeking an injunction enforcing the covenant. The Hansberrys argued that the agreement never became effective because the 95-percent condition had not been satisfied. Illinois courts held that the earlier Burke judgment was res judicata against them, reasoning that Burke had been a representative class suit binding all similarly situated landowners. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether that ruling denied the Hansberrys due process.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a judgment in a representative or class suit may, consistently with due process, bind persons who were not formally named or served as parties.

Holding

Yes, but only when the procedure fairly protects the absent persons’ interests, ordinarily because they were adequately represented by parties with the same interests.

Reasoning

The ordinary rule is that a person is not bound by an in personam judgment in litigation to which that person was neither made a party nor subjected to service of process. Enforcing such a judgment against an absent person ordinarily violates the notice-and-opportunity-to-be-heard requirements of due process.

Equity nevertheless developed representative litigation because joining every interested person can be impracticable. A class judgment may bind absentees when parties before the court adequately represent them, when absentees actually participate in the litigation, or when a legal relationship—such as a joint interest—entitles the named parties to stand in judgment for others.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not compel states to use any particular version of class-action procedure. But when a state gives a prior judgment preclusive effect against an absent person, due process requires a procedure that fairly ensures protection of that person’s interests. A state court’s decision to call litigation a class suit does not itself resolve that constitutional question.

Issue #2

Whether the Burke litigation adequately represented the Hansberrys and could therefore preclude them from contesting whether the restrictive covenant ever became effective.

Holding

No. The persons enforcing the covenant in Burke had interests adverse to the Hansberrys’ interest in resisting it, so they could not adequately represent the Hansberrys for purposes of due process.

Reasoning

The covenant created several, rather than joint, obligations among the individual owners. Each signer or successor could have an interest either in enforcing the covenant against others or in denying its validity and resisting its enforcement. Thus, all persons affected by the agreement did not automatically form one class with identical interests.

The Burke plaintiffs sought to establish and enforce the covenant. The Hansberrys, by contrast, sought to show that the covenant never took effect because the required 95 percent of frontage had not signed. A party attempting to secure the covenant’s benefits could not fairly represent a later party whose substantial interest was to defeat the covenant.

Nor did the named Burke defendants supply adequate representation. The pleadings and decree did not treat them as representatives of other owners resisting the agreement, and their interests were themselves divided: they could benefit from establishing the covenant’s validity even while defending against its enforcement in that particular case.

Treating either side in Burke as representatives of the Hansberrys would allow parties with conflicting interests to sacrifice absent persons’ rights, whether through error, collusion, or otherwise inadequate litigation. Because the earlier suit did not provide representation aligned with the Hansberrys’ interests, applying res judicata against them deprived them of due process.