Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Constitutional Law Keyed to Levinson

View this case in different Casebooks

Property Keyed to French Constitutional Law Keyed to Choper Constitutional Law Keyed to Gershman Constitutional Law Keyed to Maggs Civil rights Keyed to Jeffries, 5th Ed.

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.

Citation:

392 U.S. 409 (1968)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Jones (Petitioner) filed suit against Alfred H. Mayer Co. (Respondent) for refusing to sell his family a home solely because the petitioner was a Black man. Jones relied on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provides that: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - Which doctrinal premise underpinned the Supreme Court’s ability in Jones to treat purely private racial refusals to sell as subject to federal prohibition under 42 U.S.C. § 1982?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Congress, exercising Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power, may legislate prophylactically against private practices that constitute or perpetuate the “badges and incidents of slavery,” so long as the statute is rationally related to eliminating those badges.

Correct! The decision rests on the Thirteenth Amendment’s unique enforcement scope, Congress may identify and prohibit private conduct functioning as “badges and incidents of slavery,” and § 1982 was upheld as rationally remedial to that constitutional objective. This justification does not convert private actors into state actors but instead treats certain private practices as within Congress’s power to eradicate the vestiges of slavery.

(B) The Court treated private discriminatory refusals to sell as state action whenever the seller was part of a regulated market for housing.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The Court did not predicate its holding on regulation of the housing market or treat market participation alone as converting private acts into state action.

(C) § 1982 was read to incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment’s “state action” requirement, so only governmentally-sponsored private discrimination was covered.

Incorrect. This is wrong: § 1982 was not limited by Fourteenth Amendment state-action doctrine in Jones; the holding specifically relied on Thirteenth Amendment enforcement, not incorporation of state-action constraints.

(D) The Court relied on a narrow reading of § 1982 and required a showing of government complicity for federal remedy.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The Court rejected a narrow interpretation that would require government complicity; it affirmed a federal remedial reach against some purely private conduct.

Q.2 - After Jones, which description most accurately captures the federal-court remedial and jurisdictional posture for private plaintiffs invoking § 1982 against a private seller who refused sale on racial grounds?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Federal courts lack federal-question jurisdiction for private § 1982 claims absent diversity; plaintiffs must proceed in state court.

Incorrect. This is wrong: Federal-question jurisdiction is available for § 1982 claims; diversity is not a prerequisite.

(B) § 1982 creates a federal right enforceable in federal court under federal-question jurisdiction because § 1982 is a statute implementing constitutional (Thirteenth Amendment) protections, permitting federal adjudication of private discrimination suits.

Correct! Jones confirms that § 1982 is a federal statutory cause of action rooted in constitutional enforcement power (Thirteenth Amendment), and such statutory rights present a federal question that federal courts may adjudicate without requiring a separate jurisdictional hook. This allows plaintiffs to bring standalone § 1982 suits in federal court to vindicate federal property-rights protections against private racial discrimination.

(C) Federal jurisdiction is available only if a plaintiff can demonstrate state action or a federal statutory predicate beyond § 1982 itself.

Incorrect. This is wrong: The decision removed the requirement that plaintiffs show state action for § 1982 federal adjudication by relying on Thirteenth Amendment enforcement authority.

(D) § 1982 claims must be brought as supplemental state-law claims; federal courts will not entertain standalone § 1982 suits.

Incorrect. This is wrong: § 1982 is a standalone federal cause of action and need not be pleaded only as a supplemental state-law claim.

Q.3 - Which statement most precisely captures the doctrinal limit and standard for bringing a § 1982 claim (as enforced under the Thirteenth Amendment) against a facially neutral private practice that produces disparate racial outcomes?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Any statistical disparate impact arising from a private practice automatically constitutes a “badge or incident of slavery” and therefore is actionable under § 1982 without further inquiry into purpose or historical nexus.

Incorrect. This is wrong: Automatic liability from any disparate impact would collapse the necessary doctrinal nexus and is inconsistent with the requirement that the conduct be related to the Thirteenth Amendment’s aim to eliminate slavery’s badges.

(B) § 1982 cannot reach facially neutral private practices; only intentional racial classifications fall within the Thirteenth Amendment’s scope.

Incorrect. This is wrong: Jones rejects a rule limiting § 1982 to only purposeful discrimination; it contemplates reaching practices that perpetuate the badges/incidents of slavery even where traditional state-action/intent tests might fail.

(C) A plaintiff may challenge a facially neutral private practice under § 1982, but liability requires demonstration that the practice operates as (or is shown to be causally linked to) a badge or incident of slavery — which demands a factual showing of how the practice perpetuates historical racial subordination and a legislative or judicial connection to the remedial purpose.

Correct! The proper doctrinal posture is nuanced: Jones permits Congress and courts to reach private, facially neutral practices, but plaintiffs must show more than bare statistical disparity — they must show (factually and doctrinally) that the practice functions as a badge or incident of slavery or that Congress had an adequate factual basis tying the practice to slavery’s lingering badges; liability therefore turns on causal and historical linkage, not mere numbers. This standard preserves remedial breadth while imposing a substantive nexus requirement to avoid untethered federal regulation of all disparate outcomes.

(D) Private practices with disparate effects are removable to federal court only if Congress has explicitly labeled that specific private practice as a badge of slavery in statutory text or legislative findings.

Incorrect. This is wrong: While congressional findings strengthen enforcement, Jones does not require that Congress have already labeled each specific practice in statute — courts may evaluate whether a practice is within the remedial scope by reference to historical and factual predicates.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

Topic Video

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.

8m 59s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

State Power (Federalism)

Topic Charts & Notes

Powers Chart

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.