The United States Supreme Courts 1948 ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer fa

Question

The United States Supreme Court’s 1948 ruling in
 Shelley v. Kraemer  famously disallowed state courts
from enforcing racially restrictive covenants. Such
covenants are, in essence, private legal obligations
  (5)   included in the deed to a property requiring that only
members of a certain race be allowed to occupy the
property. Because it prohibited the enforcement of
these covenants, the Court’s decision in  Shelley v.
Kraemer  is justly celebrated for overturning a key
  (10)   instrument of housing discrimination. However, while
few would deny that racially restrictive covenants are
unjust, the stated legal rationale for the  Shelley 
decision has nevertheless proven to be problematic.

The  Shelley  Court relied on the Fourteenth
  (15)   Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants
equal protection under the law to all U.S. citizens.
This amendment had long been held to apply to state
actors but not individuals.  Shelley  did not purport to
alter this. But where, then, was the state action that is
  (20)   necessary for invoking the Fourteenth Amendment,
given that the restrictive covenants were private
contracts? The Court’s answer was that although the
restrictive covenants themselves were perfectly legal,
judicial enforcement of the covenants violated the
  (25)   Fourteenth Amendment because responsibility for a
contract’s substantive provisions should be attributed
to the state when a court enforces it. According to this
“attribution” rationale, courts could enforce only those
contractual provisions that could have been enacted
  (30)   into general law. Because the Fourteenth Amendment
would not have allowed a law that banned members of
a certain race from purchasing property, it followed
from  Shelley’s  analysis that judicial enforcement of
racially restrictive covenants also was unconstitutional.

(35)    Shelley’s  attribution logic threatened to dissolve
the distinction between state action, to which
Fourteenth Amendment limitations apply, and private
action, which falls outside of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s purview. After all,  Shelley’s  approach,
  (40)   consistently applied, would require individuals to
conform their private agreements to constitutional
standards whenever, as is almost always the case, the
individuals want the option of later seeking judicial
enforcement. Primarily for this reason, neither the
  (45)   Supreme Court nor lower courts later applied  Shelley’s 
approach. Courts routinely enforce contracts whose
substantive provisions could not have been
constitutionally enacted by government. For instance,
courts regularly enforce settlement agreements that
  (50)   limit the settling party’s ability to speak publicly in
various respects, despite the fact that statutory
limitations on the identical speech would represent an
unconstitutional violation of free speech.

Additionally, there is a particularly noxious aspect
  (55)   ofthe  Shelley  Court’s analytics—namely, the Court’s
conclusion that racially restrictive covenants
themselves were perfectly legal. The legal rationale
behind the She//ey decision thus failed to target the
genuine problem with racially restrictive covenants:
  (60)   what was troubling was not the covenants’
enforcement but their substantive content.    1 
 1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) question the reasoning behind a particular judicial decision
(B) draw a distinction between private action and state action
(C) defend the way in which scholars and courts have traditionally explained a particular judicial decision
(D) highlight the shortcomings of the U.S. Constitution
(E) extend the rationale offered in a particular judicial decision to additional cases

2 
 2. An answer to which one of the following questions would be most relevant to determining whether an action can be classified a "state action" (line 19), as the author uses that phrase in the second paragraph?

(A) What range of people can the action be expected to affect?
(B) To what agent can performance of the action be ascribed?
(C) What principle or principles can be said to govern the action?
(D) In what ways can the action be expected to affect others?
(E) What motivations can be attributed to those performing the action?

3 
 3. The author's attitude towards the reasoning offered in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in  Shelley v. Kraemer  is most accurately reflected in the author's use of which one of the following phrases?

(A) "famously disallowed" (line 2)
(B) "justly celebrated" (line 9)
(C) "perfectly legal" (line 23)
(D) "consistently applied" (line 40)
(E) "noxious aspect" (line 54)

4 
 4. Which one of the following describes an attribution of responsibility that is most analogous to the attribution central to what the author refers to as  Shelley's  "attribution" rationale (line 28)?

(A) If a trucking company fails to properly inspect its vehicles, the company can be held responsible for any accidents in which those vehicles are involved.
(B) If an individual signs a private contract, that person can be held responsible for the provisions of that contract even if the person did not read or comprehend those provisions.
(C) If a newspaper publishes a columnist's op-ed piece, the newspaper, and not just the columnist, can be held responsible for the content of the piece.
(D) If a person is in a position to rescue someone in peril, but chooses not to do so, that person can be held responsible for any injuries suffered by the person in peril.
(E) If a company discovers that it has manufactured and distributed a faulty product, the company is responsible for issuing a recall of that product.

5 
 5. In the second paragraph, the author asks the question, "...where, then, was the state action that is necessary for invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, given that the restrictive covenants were private contracts?" (lines 19-22) primarily in order to

(A) demonstrate the conceptual incoherence of a distinction employed by the  Shelley  Court
(B) highlight a potentially confusing issue central to understanding the  Shelley  Court's decision
(C) suggest that the  Shelley  Court did not properly attend to the facts of the case in its decision
(D) cast suspicion on the motivations of the individual judges who served on the  Shelley  Court
(E) challenge the presuppositions upon which the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is based

6 
 6. Which one of the following principles is most clearly operative in the author's argument?

(A) If a judicial decision is deemed by legal scholars to be problematic, subsequent courts should refrain from appealing to that decision.
(B) If a private agreement is deemed judicially unenforceable, the substantive content of that agreement should be considered for inclusion in a statute.
(C) If a judicial decision fails to address the most troubling aspect of a practice, then measures should be taken to prevent this practice from continuing in an altered form.
(D) If courts are hesitant to apply the rationale given in a past decision, this should be taken as evidence that the rationale is questionable.
(E) If the rationale given in a judicial decision is found to be controversial, the decision should be supported by offering a new rationale.

RC Butler 2023  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 57 Date: 13-Mar-2023
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2023 .  Click here for Details

Source:   LSAT Official PrepTest 85   
 Difficulty Level:   700

Robust536 · Answer

WHY THE ANSWER OF QUESTION NO.2 IS B

alax123 · Answer

Please read this part of the passage - "The Shelley Court relied on the Fourteenth
(15) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants
equal protection under the law to all U.S. citizens.
This amendment had long been held to apply to state
actors but not individuals. Shelley did not purport to
alter this. But where, then, was the state action that is
(20) necessary for invoking the Fourteenth Amendment,
given that the restrictive covenants were private
contracts?"

It says 14th amendment applied to state actors and not individuals. Therefore, the private contracts were perfectly legal (line 57) except if a court had to enforce the terms, then it would be illegal because it was illegal for the court - a government body to endorse racially restrictive covenants. That is what option B says and hence is the right answer.

Its_me_aka_ak · Answer

got 4 and 6 wrong. kindly assist

Alka10 · Answer

Its_me_aka_ak 
For Q6 - Here is the support from the passage -Primarily for this reason, neither the
(45) Supreme Court nor lower courts later applied Shelley’s
approach.

Since courts couldn't apply it, the rationale behind it is explained in the paras before these lines and hence is questionable.

I hope it helps!

Anyone who can help with Q4, I marked option B - because when the state enforces the law, that alone is held responsible for that and not some other entity alongwith state - so, how come C is correct - stating 2 entities - newspaper and columnist both responsible.

Thanks
Alka

Thanks
Alka

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

4. Which one of the following describes an attribution of responsibility that is most analogous to the attribution central to what the author refers to as Shelley's "attribution" rationale (line 28)?

Difficulty Level:   700+

Explanation

In Shelley's  "attribution"  rationale, the Court argued that although racially restrictive covenants themselves were private contracts and therefore not directly subject to the Fourteenth Amendment, the enforcement of these covenants by the courts should be attributed to the state. This is because the court's involvement in enforcing the covenants effectively lends state authority to the private agreement, making the state responsible for upholding the discriminatory provisions.

Option (C)  is the most analogous to this rationale. In this scenario, just as Shelley attributed the responsibility for enforcing private contracts to the state, the newspaper is attributed responsibility for the content of a columnist's opned piece that they choose to publish. Even though the content is authored by an individual, the act of publishing makes the newspaper responsible for the dissemination of that content. Similarly, in Shelley, the private covenants themselves were legal, but their enforcement was attributed to the state and thus subjected to constitutional standards.

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

6. Which one of the following principles is most clearly operative in the author's argument?

Difficulty Level:   750

Explanation

The passage discusses how the rationale behind the  Shelley v. Kraemer  decision, particularly the  "attribution"  rationale, faced challenges and has been problematic. The author argues that subsequent courts did not apply Shelley's approach due to its potential unintended consequences and lack of alignment with constitutional standards. This aligns with  option (D)  because the passage implies that the hesitation of courts to apply the Shelley rationale suggests that the rationale itself is questionable.

(A)  The passage discusses the problematic nature of the Shelley decision's rationale, but it doesn't explicitly suggest that subsequent courts should refrain from appealing to it solely because legal scholars find it problematic.

(B)  While the passage discusses the enforcement of private agreements in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment, it does not suggest that the substantive content of unenforceable agreements should be included in statutes.

(C)  is a close choice, but the passage does not explicitly discuss taking measures to prevent the practice from continuing in an altered form. It focuses more on the problems with the decision's rationale and the potential consequences of that rationale.

(E)  The passage doesn't suggest that a new rationale should be offered to support a controversial decision. Instead, it critiques the rationale of the Shelley decision rather than suggesting that a new rationale should be proposed to justify it.

Answer: D

HaSmamit · Answer

Hi Robust536, this is how I see it-

Q: 2. An answer to which one of the following questions would be most relevant to determining whether an action can be classified a "state action" (line 19), as the author uses that phrase in the second paragraph?

First, let's simplify the question to "Asking which of these questions would allow me to determine if something is a state action?"

The 14th Amendment applies only to "state actions", and here we are dealing with contracts made by private people. So, there must be a "state action" somewhere within the act of creating these private contracts, that would make that 14th Amendment applicable. According to the text:
"Judicial enforcement of the covenants violated the Fourteenth Amendment because  responsibility for a contract’s substantive provisions should be attributed to the state when a court enforces it.  According to this “attribution” rationale, courts could enforce only those contractual provisions that could have been enacted into general law."

So, as the term "state action" suggests, to determine whether something can be considered a "state action", we must know if it should be attributed to the state. Therefore, the answer is B.
I hope I managed to clear it up a bit.

ashutosh_73 · Answer

This one took the life out me. While i was able to navigate the passage structure, i found question 4,5 and 6 utterly difficult!
Definitely not a 600-650 level passage and certainly not a 700 level passage. Must be 800+
 
 Sajjad1994  Request you to add the numberings in the Q6 options.
Also line no.s 54-61 are a part of diff paragraph

Raman109 · Answer

2. An answer to which one of the following questions would be most relevant to determining whether an action can be classified a "state action" (line 19), as the author uses that phrase in the second paragraph?

The crux of the question is, "When can an action be classified as a "state action?" A simple answer is whether the state is responsible for performing it through courts or executing it. If some private party is executing it or responsible for its performance, then it's not a state action.

(A) What range of people can the action be expected to affect? - The passage says that "=12.0pt courts could enforce only those  =12.0pt contractual provisions that could have been enacted =12.0pt  into general law," but what we are asked here is something different a step before this. What we are asked is, basically, how do we know if a certain action can be termed under state action? Out of scope.

(B) To what agent can performance of the action be ascribed? - Yes. If the state is the agent, it's a state action. Ok.

(C) What principle or principles can be said to govern the action? - Out of scope.

(D) In what ways can the action be expected to affect others? - out of scope.

(E) What motivations can be attributed to those performing the action? - out of scope.

Raman109 · Answer

4. Which one of the following describes an attribution of responsibility that is most analogous to the attribution central to what the author refers to as Shelley's "attribution" rationale (line 28)?

Let's understand Shelly's attribution (assign/ascribe) stance. Shelly ascribes the role to the "state" if one of its agents, "courts," is involved in the implementation. We need to look for analogous situations where a larger entity is considered responsible if one of its agents is engaged.

(A) If a trucking company fails to properly inspect its vehicles, the company can be held responsible for any accidents in which those vehicles are involved. - Direct responsibility without the involvement of any of its agencies.

(B) If an individual signs a private contract, that person can be held responsible for the provisions of that contract even if the person did not read or comprehend those provisions. - Direct responsibility without the involvement of any of its agencies.

(C) If a newspaper publishes a columnist's op-ed piece, the newspaper, and not just the columnist, can be held responsible for the content of the piece. - ok. Newspaper responsible for columnists action.

(D) If a person is in a position to rescue someone in peril, but chooses not to do so, that person can be held responsible for any injuries suffered by the person in peril. - out of scope.

(E) If a company discovers that it has manufactured and distributed a faulty product, the company is responsible for issuing a recall of that product. - Direct responsibility without the involvement of any of its agencies.

Raman109 · Answer

5. In the second paragraph, the author asks the question, "...where, then, was the state action that is necessary for invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, given that the restrictive covenants were private contracts?" (lines 19-22) primarily in order to

(A) demonstrate the conceptual incoherence of a distinction employed by the Shelley Court - "conceptual incoherence" is wrong. 
(B) highlight a potentially confusing issue central to understanding the Shelley Court's decision - "potentially confusing issue" is ok. For some, it may not be confusing, but for some, it is "potential.". 
(C) suggest that the Shelley Court did not properly attend to the facts of the case in its decision - "did not properly attend to the facts" is out of scope. 
(D) cast suspicion on the motivations of the individual judges who served on the Shelley Court - out of scope. 
(E) challenge the presuppositions upon which the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is based - out of scope.

ThatIndianGuy · Answer

Sajjad1994  please share explanation for Q5 btwn A and B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

In the passage, the author poses the question,  "where, then, was the state action that is necessary for invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, given that the restrictive covenants were private contracts?"  This question is raised in the context of discussing the legal rationale behind the Shelley Court's decision to disallow racially restrictive covenants. The passage explains that the Fourteenth Amendment traditionally applies to state actors but not individuals. However, the Court held that judicial enforcement of the covenants violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it attributed responsibility for the contract's substantive provisions to the state when a court enforced it.

So, why does the author ask this question? The purpose is to highlight a potentially confusing issue central to understanding the Shelley Court's decision. By questioning where the state action lies in enforcing private contracts, the author is drawing attention to the conceptual incoherence or ambiguity in the distinction employed by the Shelley Court between state action and private action. This question underscores the complexity and potential inconsistency in the Court's reasoning, which is crucial for readers to comprehend the legal intricacies of the case.

Answer  option (A)  suggests that the question is asked to demonstrate the conceptual incoherence of a distinction employed by the Shelley Court. While this may be a consequence of the question, it doesn't directly capture the author's intent to ask the question. The question serves more as a means to highlight the conceptual ambiguity rather than to demonstrate it explicitly.

B  is correct.

The United States Supreme Courts 1948 ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer fa

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The United States Supreme Courts 1948 ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer fa

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards