In Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not assist in enforcing a discriminatory private deed restriction. Which option correctly reflects this ruling?

• A. The government could not assist in enforcement of a discriminatory private deed restriction
• B. The government could assist in enforcing a discriminatory private deed restriction
• C. The government could regulate all private covenants
• D. Only federal authorities could enforce private covenants

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that state action cannot be used to enforce private discrimination. In Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court held that when a discriminatory private deed restriction is enforced by the state—through the courts—the government is effectively endorsing discrimination, which violates the Equal Protection Clause. Because the enforcement involves the state, the government could not assist in enforcing such a restriction.

This means private covenants themselves aren’t automatically illegal, but the state cannot be used to enforce them if the enforcement would perpetuate racial discrimination. The option stating that the government could not assist in enforcement accurately reflects this principle. The other choices would imply state endorsement or broad regulation of private covenants, or misstate which level of government enforces such restrictions, none of which align with the ruling.