Hunter v. Erickson

Hunter v. Erickson
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 13, 1968 Decided January 20, 1969
Full case name	Hunter v. Erickson, Mayor of Akron, et al.
Citations	393 U.S. 385 (more) 89 S. Ct. 557; 21 L. Ed. 2d 616; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2782; 47 Ohio Op. 2d 100
Case history
Prior	12 Ohio St. 2d 116 (reversed)
Holding
An amendment of a city charter prohibiting racial discrimination except if decided by popular vote discriminates against minorities, and constitute a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Abe Fortas · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority	White, joined by Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, Fortas, Marshall
Concurrence	Harlan, joined by Stewart
Dissent	Black
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case.

The question in the case was "whether the City of Akron, Ohio, has denied [a black citizen] the equal protection of its laws by amending the city charter to prevent the city council from implementing any ordinance dealing with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing without the approval of the majority of the voters of Akron."

The Court held an amendment of a city charter to discriminate against minorities, and constitute a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This amendment provided that an ordinance enacted by the city council would not be effective unless approved by a majority of the city voters at a regular or general election, and that any such ordinance in effect at the time of the charter amendment shall cease to be effective until approved by the voters, a fair housing ordinance having in fact been previously enacted by the city council; that ordinance dealt with racial, religious, or ancestral discrimination in housing.

The amendment discriminated and violated the equal protection of the laws since, under the city's general system of enacting ordinances, an ordinance was effective a specified time after passage by the city council unless 10 percent of the voters petitioned for a referendum, and the amendment of the charter not only suspended the operation of the existing ordinance forbidding housing discrimination, but also made an explicit racial classification treating racial housing matters differently from other racial matters or other housing matters and made it more difficult to secure enactment of ordinances subject to the amendment, it being immaterial that the amendment drew no distinctions among racial and religious groups, since the amendment disadvantaged those who would benefit from laws barring racial, religious, or ancestral discriminations as against those who would bar other discriminations or who would otherwise regulate the real-estate market in their favor, and since the reality is that the law's impact falls on the minority and places special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process.