The test established in the opinion essentially asks whether a valid ordinance could be enacted prohibiting the conduct contractually proscribed, which courts have used to limit this case's holding to racial discrimination.
A controversy in this case arose from the Solicitor General's office declining to list the Jewish authors of its Amicus Curiae brief. The decision in this case referenced ordinances overturned in Harmon v. Tyler and Buchanan v. Warley, and it used Virginia v. Rives to support its central holding. The Supreme Court declined to extend this case to contractual abdication of one's right to free speech in United Egg Producers v. Standard Brands, and an Ohio court notably refused to apply this case to the probation of a will in Shapira v. Union National Bank, in which the decedent conditioned his sons' inheritance on their marrying Jewish women. The test established in the opinion essentially asks whether a valid ordinance could be enacted prohibiting the conduct contractually proscribed, which courts have used to limit this case's holding to racial discrimination. For 10 points name this 1948 case that held that judicial injunctive enforcement constituted state action, thereby outlawing racially restrictive covenants.
A controversy in this case arose from the Solicitor General's office declining to list the Jewish authors of its Amicus Curiae brief.
{Shelley} v. {Kraemer}