Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1976

Runyon v. McCrary

427 U.S. 160 | 96 S. Ct. 2586 | 49 L. Ed. 2d 415 | 1976 U.S. LEXIS 7

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, Runyon held that § 1981 bars private commercial schools that offer educational services to the public from denying admission solely because of race, without violating constitutional rights of association, parental control, or privacy.

Background

Michael McCrary and Colin Gonzales, both Black children, sought admission to two commercially operated, nonsectarian private schools in Virginia: Bobbe’s School and Fairfax-Brewster School. The schools advertised broadly through telephone-directory listings and mass mailings, but neither had ever admitted a Black child. School representatives told the Gonzales family that Fairfax-Brewster was not integrated and told the McCrary family that Bobbe’s admitted only Caucasian students.

The children and their parents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that the schools had denied them the right to make contracts for educational services on the same terms offered to white students. The Southern Independent School Association, whose members included schools with similar exclusionary policies, intervened. After consolidating the cases, the District Court found intentional racial discrimination, enjoined the schools and association members from discriminating in admissions, and awarded compensatory damages. It held the Gonzales parents’ damages claim time-barred under Virginia’s two-year personal-injury limitations period and awarded attorney’s fees. Sitting en banc, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction, damages, and limitations ruling, but reversed the attorney-fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits private, commercially operated, nonsectarian schools from refusing admission to qualified Black children because of their race.

Holding

Yes. Section 1981 reaches private racial discrimination in contracting and barred these schools from denying educational services to applicants solely because they were Black.

Reasoning

Section 1981 guarantees all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as white citizens. The Court’s prior decisions, especially Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., and Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, established that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 reaches private as well as state-sponsored racial discrimination in the rights it protects.

A contract for private educational services falls within § 1981. The parents sought to pay tuition in exchange for instruction, and the schools offered those services to the public. By extending that opportunity to white applicants while refusing it to Black children solely on racial grounds, the schools denied Black applicants an equal opportunity to make contracts.

The Court declined to reconsider its settled interpretation of § 1981. Congress had also declined to repeal § 1981’s application to private employment discrimination when it amended federal employment-discrimination law, reinforcing the Court’s reading of the statute.

Issue #2

Whether applying § 1981 to prohibit these schools’ racially discriminatory admissions policies violates constitutional rights of free association, parental control of education, or privacy.

Holding

No. The statute’s application to these commercially operated schools does not violate the First Amendment or any constitutional right of parents or schools to operate racially exclusive private schools.

Reasoning

The First Amendment protects association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas, and parents may choose schools that advocate racial segregation. But that protection does not extend to the act of excluding racial minorities from a school’s admissions process. Ending discriminatory admissions would not prevent the schools from teaching their beliefs or values, and the Constitution does not affirmatively protect invidious racial discrimination.

Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Wisconsin v. Yoder recognize parents’ liberty to direct their children’s education and to choose private rather than public schools. Those cases do not give parents or private schools a right to private education free from reasonable regulation. Section 1981 neither closes the schools nor dictates their curriculum; it prohibits racial discrimination in their contractual dealings.

The privacy interests implicated by family and educational decisions do not insulate a school’s public-facing commercial admissions practices from regulation. These schools did not operate in the home or a comparably intimate setting; they broadly solicited students from the public. Congress could validly use its Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power to eliminate racial discrimination in contracts for private educational services.

Issue #3

Whether Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions governed the Gonzales parents’ § 1981 damages claim.

Holding

Yes. The lower courts properly borrowed Virginia’s two-year limitations period, so the claim filed three and a half years after accrual was untimely.

Reasoning

Because Congress supplied no federal limitations period for § 1981 damages actions, federal courts ordinarily borrow the most appropriate state limitations rule. Virginia had no limitations statute specifically addressing civil-rights actions.

The Fourth Circuit had previously and carefully interpreted Virginia law to apply the two-year period for personal injuries to analogous federal civil-rights claims. The Supreme Court deferred to that established construction of state law, particularly because it had been consistently applied by federal courts in Virginia.

The claimed injury involved humiliation, emotional harm, and injury to personal rights rather than injury to property. The Court found no persuasive Virginia authority limiting the phrase “personal injuries” to physical injuries alone.

Issue #4

Whether the prevailing plaintiffs could recover attorney’s fees under § 1981 or § 1988 despite the absence of an express fee-shifting provision.

Holding

No. Attorney’s fees were unavailable because no statute authorized them and the schools had not litigated in bad faith.

Reasoning

Under the American Rule, each side ordinarily bears its own attorney’s fees absent explicit statutory authorization or a recognized equitable exception. Section 1981 contains no attorney-fee provision, unlike certain other civil-rights statutes.

Section 1988 permits courts to use suitable federal or state remedial rules when civil-rights laws are deficient, but it does not silently displace the American Rule. Its general remedial language could not be read as an implicit congressional authorization for fee shifting.

The bad-faith exception did not apply. Although the trial court rejected school officials’ testimony and found racial discrimination, losing factual disputes does not itself show that a party acted vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. The record did not establish the level of misconduct necessary to impose fees as a sanction.

Concurrences

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell agreed that precedent controlled, even though he found Justice White’s historical critique of § 1981 persuasive if the issue were new. Jones, Tillman, Sullivan, and Johnson had recently and deliberately established that § 1981 reaches some private racial discrimination, and Powell concluded that the Court should adhere to those decisions.

Powell emphasized the narrowness of the holding. The schools made broad, commercial offers to the public through advertising and general solicitations, not individualized choices to form intimate relationships. Section 1981 therefore applied to their racially exclusionary admissions policies.

He cautioned that the decision did not authorize intrusive review of every private refusal to contract. Genuinely personal relationships—such as selecting a private tutor, babysitter, or housekeeper—or small schools formed through individualized invitations may involve longstanding associational interests and present different questions.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens believed that the original meaning and historical setting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 likely did not prohibit private racial discrimination. In his view, Congress intended to secure equal legal capacity to contract, own property, and use the courts, and it likely did not intend to outlaw segregated private schools when it did not purport to abolish segregated public education.

Nonetheless, he concluded that Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. and its progeny had unequivocally adopted the contrary construction. Because § 1981 and § 1982 share a common origin, construing one to reach private discrimination while treating the other as limited to state-imposed legal disabilities would be incongruous.

Stare decisis supplied the decisive reason to join the Court. Even if Jones had misunderstood the Reconstruction Congress, its rule comported with the modern national commitment to eliminate racial segregation, and overruling it would produce a major and unjustified retreat from settled civil-rights law.

Dissents

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist, argued that § 1981 guarantees equal legal capacity to make and enforce contracts, not a right to compel an unwilling private person to contract. Because white citizens themselves have no general right to force private parties to enter contracts, he reasoned, the statute’s promise of the same contractual rights as white citizens does not bar a private refusal to deal, even if racially motivated.

He maintained that § 1981 derives from the 1870 Voting Rights Act, enacted under Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment power to secure equal protection of the laws for all persons, including aliens. Its purpose, in his view, was to invalidate state laws and customs that denied people equal legal rights, rather than to regulate private conduct. He relied on the Civil Rights Cases and the statute’s legislative history as confirming that state action was required.

White rejected the majority’s conclusion that § 1981 carried forward the private-conduct prohibition the Court had read into § 1982 in Jones. The relevant statutory language and legislative histories differed, he argued, and the 1874 codification should not be treated as preserving a Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on private refusals to contract.

He warned that the majority’s construction would force courts to decide which private associations and contractual relationships could exclude persons on racial grounds. That policy judgment, he argued, belongs to Congress, which had prohibited private discrimination in specified fields such as employment and housing but had not enacted a general prohibition applicable to all private contracting decisions.