Historically, African-Americans have been subjected to racial discrimination throughout society. One of the more problematic areas of racial discrimination involves African-Americans traveling throughout the in various interstate and transportation facilities. Historically, African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens being segregated from traveling with . Over the years, African-Americans have sought redress of these problems through the federal courts. The seminal case that illustrates this problem is Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31 (1962).

In this case, were provided segregated services from the White Americans in interstate and intrastate transportation facilities. The Black Americans alleged that providing such segregated services violates the which reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.�

The Black Americans alleged that such rights had been denied under color of state statutes, municipal ordinances, and state custom and usage. Based upon the foregoing, their rights of equality under the United States Constitution were violated. This civil rights action was brought in a district court seeking injunctive relief enforcing their civil rights.

The refused to hear the matter stating that Black Americans have no standing to enjoin criminal prosecutions under Mississippi’s breach of peace statutes because they do not allege that that they were prosecuted or threatened with prosecution and since not State may require it is foreclosed as a litigable issue. They appealed directly to the . The United States Constitution disagreed with the District Court’s position.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that although the appellants are not direct victims of racial discrimination, as passengers utilizing the segregated services of interstate and intrastate transportation facilities they have an absolute right to join this civil rights action. Further, the Court ruled that it cannot foreclose cases filed with respect to such important legal questions. The Court would have to interpret and if needed implement the Constitutional provisions in such instances. The Court has the authority to direct the matter for adjudication to the appropriate court. In this case, the Court directed the matter to be adjudicated by very same District Court that refused to hear the matter in the first instance.

On remand, after openly defying court orders, and subsequent action by the , the segregated interstate and intrastate transportation facilities along with any indicia of their existence were finally removed.

If your rights to freely travel throughout interstate and intrastate transportation facilities are being violated contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claims thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Racial Discrimination in Interstate and Intrastate Transportation Facilities first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Historically, have been subjected to racial discrimination throughout society. One of the more problematic areas of racial discrimination involved the sale and rental of property. Historically, refused to either sell or rent property to African Americans. Over the years, African-Americans have sought redress of these problems through the federal courts. The seminal case that illustrates this problem is Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).

In this case, Mr. Joseph Lee Jones was not allowed to buy property from a White American due to his race. Mr. Jones filed a complaint before the against Alfred H. Mayer Co. praying for injunctive relief. Mr. Jones alleged in the complaint that the racial discrimination preventing him from buying property is violative of 42 § 1982 which reads:

“All citizens of the shall have the same right, in every , as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.�

The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that Section 1982 is applicable only to state owned/managed properties and not to private individuals selling their private properties. The ruled in Mr. Jones’s favor.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 1982 is applicable to all kinds of racial discrimination in the sale and rental of properties whether the property is state owned/managed or owned by private individuals. The Court also ruled that Section 1982 was enacted with the intention to grant legal rights to Black Americans to buy and rent properties without restriction. The Court further ruled that Section 1982 is in line with the reading of the , which reads:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.�

The Court determined that depriving Blacks from buying properties from White Americans is analogous to continuing with the vestiges of slavery in direct conflict with the Congressional intent which was to abolish slavery and eradicate its existence from society. Moreover, the Court determined that removing the hurdles for Blacks to own properties is entirely consistent with the Congressional intent as legislated in Section 1982.
If your rights to sell and rent real and personal property are being violated contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claims thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Racial Discrimination in the Sale and Rental of Property first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..