Summary
The Sixth Circuit held that an African-American resident lacked Article III standing to sue Ohio county recorders under the Fair Housing Act for maintaining historical land records containing unenforceable racially restrictive covenants. The plaintiff failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury because he did not assert any intent to purchase or rent property, and his generalized feeling of being unwelcome from viewing historical language did not constitute a cognizable injury in fact. The court affirmed dismissal, emphasizing that the covenants are purely historical and legally unenforceable, and that standing cannot rest on an "undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government."
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mason has standing under Article III to bring suit challenging the maintenance of racially restrictive covenants in county land records.
Holdings
- Mason lacked standing because he failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact. His claimed injury was a generalized grievance not particularized to him, and he did not allege any economic harm or intent to purchase property.
Key quotations
“[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical.' " Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision."” (756)
“In ancient Rome, the practice of damnatio memoriae, or the condemnation of memory, could be imposed on felons whose very existence, including destruction of their human remains, would literally be erased from history for the crimes they had committed. Land title documents with racially restrictive covenants that we now find offensive, morally reprehensible, and repugnant cannot be subject to damnatio memoriae, as those documents are part of our living history and witness to the evolution of our cultural norms.” (757)
Factual background
Darryl Mason, an African-American resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, filed suit against all 88 Ohio county recorders, challenging their maintenance of historical land records that contain racially restrictive covenants. The complaint included copies of 29 land records from 1922 to 1957 containing such covenants. There was no allegation that any of the covenants were ever enforced after 1948. Mason alleged that the recorders' practices discouraged him and others from purchasing real estate by creating a feeling of being unwelcome.
Procedural history
Mason filed suit against all 88 Ohio county recorders, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that Mason lacked standing. Mason appealed.