Takeaway
In short, Buchanan v. Warley held that a city may not use racial zoning to prevent property sales and residential occupancy based solely on race, even when the city invokes public peace, racial separation, or property values.
Buchanan, a white property owner, agreed to sell a Louisville lot to Warley, a Black purchaser. The written offer made the sale conditional: Warley would not have to accept the deed or pay unless Kentucky and Louisville law permitted him to occupy the property as his residence.
Louisville’s 1914 racial-segregation ordinance barred a Black person from occupying a residence on a block where a majority of homes were occupied by white people, and imposed the reciprocal restriction on white persons in majority-Black blocks. Because eight of the ten residences on the relevant block were occupied by white people, Warley asserted that the ordinance made his proposed occupancy illegal and excused performance.
Buchanan sought specific performance. The Kentucky trial court and the Kentucky Court of Appeals treated the ordinance’s validity as dispositive, and the state high court upheld the ordinance. Buchanan brought the case to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue #1
Whether Buchanan, a white seller, could challenge an ordinance whose immediate racial restriction fell on his Black purchaser.
Holding
Yes. Buchanan had standing because the ordinance directly impaired his own property right to sell his land to a willing purchaser.
Reasoning
Constitutional challenges ordinarily must be brought by a person whose own rights are directly affected, rather than by one asserting another person’s rights. But this case fell outside that ordinary limitation because the state courts denied Buchanan specific performance solely because the ordinance made Warley’s residential occupancy unlawful.
reasoning omitted
Issue #2
Whether Louisville could, through its police power, prohibit a Black person from occupying property on a majority-white block, and prohibit a white person from occupying property on a majority-Black block.
Holding
No. The ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment by directly interfering with property rights on the sole basis of race.
Reasoning
The ordinance rested entirely on color. Its practical effect was to make property on a majority-white block unavailable for residential purchase and use by Black persons, and correspondingly to restrict white persons in majority-Black blocks. Because occupancy is an essential incident of residential ownership, the measure substantially burdened the ability to buy, sell, use, and enjoy property.
reasoning omitted
reasoning omitted