Thurgood Marshall is in an elite group of lawyers, from 1940 until 1960, his time as lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) placed him at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. During his tenure, he argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court of America and won 29 of those cases. This prolific use of the law to fight discrimination gave him the moniker “Mr. Civil Rights”. His skill as a lawyer helped to overturn or change laws that discriminated in voting, transportation, housing, and schooling. He specifically challenged laws in the areas of racial inequality in voting practices, racially restricting covenants in housing, segregation in public transportation and public education.
Smith v. Allwright (1944)
Lonnie E. Smith, was a black voter in Texas who sued the county election official S.S. Allright for the right to vote in a …show more content…
D. Shelley, an African American with six children who purchased a St. Louis house. The house had a racial covenant that had not been disclosed to Shelley. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to restrain the Shelley’s from taking possession of their property, due to the covenant restrictions that barred people from the Negro or Mongolian race from occupying the property. Earlier laws such as Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), had upheld the right of individuals to make private contracts not to sell or rent property to members of other racial or ethnic groups. In its Shelley v. Kraemer ruling, the Court did not directly overturn Corrigan, it ruled that the racially based restrictive covenants are valid under the Fourteenth Amendment and could be voluntarily adhered to, but any legal action to enforce these covenants would make it a state action that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is an important ruling as it emphasized the difference between private acts (not restricted) and state actions (limited) in relationship to the Fourteenth
Smith v. Allwright (1944)
Lonnie E. Smith, was a black voter in Texas who sued the county election official S.S. Allright for the right to vote in a …show more content…
D. Shelley, an African American with six children who purchased a St. Louis house. The house had a racial covenant that had not been disclosed to Shelley. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to restrain the Shelley’s from taking possession of their property, due to the covenant restrictions that barred people from the Negro or Mongolian race from occupying the property. Earlier laws such as Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), had upheld the right of individuals to make private contracts not to sell or rent property to members of other racial or ethnic groups. In its Shelley v. Kraemer ruling, the Court did not directly overturn Corrigan, it ruled that the racially based restrictive covenants are valid under the Fourteenth Amendment and could be voluntarily adhered to, but any legal action to enforce these covenants would make it a state action that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is an important ruling as it emphasized the difference between private acts (not restricted) and state actions (limited) in relationship to the Fourteenth