Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:29:07.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructing the State Action Doctrine, 1940–1990

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Terri Peretti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the state action doctrine, the Constitution restricts the activities of governmental but not private entities. Despite this rule's apparent simplicity, the Supreme Court has been clearly uncomfortable with precedents like Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) and has varied considerably in its receptiveness to state action claims from 1940 to 1990. The attitudinal model provides barely a beginning in accounting for both Shelley and changes in state action limitations. While liberal justices did initially relax state action requirements and conservative justices subsequently tightened them, that explanation ignores changes in the NAACP's litigation strategy, the Court's creation of doctrinal alternatives, and powerful civil rights legislation that together produced a sharp decline in state action claims involving race after 1970. These nonattitudinal “regime politics” factors enable a more complete and nuanced understanding of the state action field and help us to see the Court as collaborative rather than independent, dependent, or countermajoritarian.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 273 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Allen, Francis A. 1989. Remembering Shelley v. Kraemer: Of Public and Private Worlds. Washington University Law Quarterly 67:709–35.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., and Maltzman, Forrest. 2008. Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the US Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 102 (3): 369–84.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2009. The Constraining Capacity of Legal Doctrine on the US Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 103 (3): 474–95.Google Scholar
Black, Charles. 1967. Foreword: “State Action,” Equal Protection and California's Proposition 14. Harvard Law Review 81 (1): 69–109.Google Scholar
Brandwein, Pamela. 2006. The Civil Rights Cases and the Lost Language of State Neglect. In The Supreme Court & American Political Development, ed. Kahn, Ronald and Kersch, Ken I., 275–325. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Brigham, John. 1978. Constitutional Language: An Interpretation of Judicial Decision. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Keith. 1999. Democratic Theory and Race‐Conscious Redistricting: The Supreme Court Constructs the American Voter. In The Supreme Court in American Politics: New Institutionalist Interpretations, ed. Gillman, Howard and Clayton, Cornell W., 219–34. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Casebeer, Kenneth M. 2000. The Empty State and Nobody's Market: The Political Economy of Non‐Responsibility and the Judicial Disappearing of the Civil Rights Movement. University of Miami Law Review 54 (2): 247–316.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 1985. Rethinking State Action. Northwestern University Law Review 80 (3): 503–57.Google Scholar
Chen, Paul. 2003. The Institutional Sources of State Success in Federalism Litigation before the Supreme Court. Law & Policy 25 (4): 455–72.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. 1968. Strategies and Tactics of Litigants in Constitutional Cases. Journal of Public Law 17 (2): 287–307.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. 2001. Civil Rights and Public Accommodations: The Heart of Atlanta Motel and McClung Cases. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Dudziak, Mary L. 2000. Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elman, Philip. 1987. The Solicitor General's Office, Justice Frankfurter, and Civil Rights Litigation, 1946–1950: An Oral History (Interviewed by Normal Silber). Harvard Law Review 100 (4): 817–52.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. 1998. The Rights Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. 1999. External Pressure and the Supreme Court's Agenda. In Supreme Court Decisionmaking: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard, 255–79. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Quinn, Kevin M., and Segal, Jeffrey A. 2007a. Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important? Northwestern University Law Review 101 (4): 1483–541.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Quinn, Kevin M., and Segal, Jeffrey A. 2008. The Bush Imprint on the Supreme Court: Why Conservatives Should Continue to Yearn and Liberals Should Not Fear. Tulsa Law Review 43 (3): 651–72.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Segal, Jeffrey A. 2005. Advice and Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., and Walker, Thomas G. 2007b. The Supreme Court Compendium, 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Ervin, Brad. 2007. Result or Reason: The Supreme Court and the Sit‐in Cases. Virginia Law Review 93 (1): 181–233.Google Scholar
Gardner, Michael R. 2002. Harry Truman and Civil Rights: Moral Courage and Political Risks. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Epstein, Lee. 1992. On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making. American Political Science Review 86 (2): 323–37.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Michael J. 2008. The Power of Precedent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2001. What's Law Got to Do With It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the “Legal Model” of Judicial Decision Making. Law & Social Inquiry 26 (2): 465–504.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2002. How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–1891. American Political Science Review 96 (3): 511–24.Google Scholar
Glennon, Robert J., and Nowak, John E. 1976. A Functional Analysis of the “State Action” Requirement. Supreme Court Review 1976:221–61.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joel K. 2005. Constitutional Dialogue and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Saint Louis University Law Journal 49 (4): 1095–146.Google Scholar
Goluboff, Risa L. 2007. The Lost Promise of Civil Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1993. The Non‐Majoritarian Problem: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary. Studies in American Political Development 7 (1): 35–73.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 2005. Constructing Judicial Review. Annual Review of Political Science 8 (1): 425–51.Google Scholar
Graglia, Lino. 1989. State Action: Constitutional Phoenix. Washington University Law Quarterly 67 (3): 777–98.Google Scholar
Hagle, Timothy, and Spaeth, Harold. 1993. Ideological Patterns in the Justices' Voting in the Burger Court's Business Cases. Journal of Politics 55 (2): 492–505.Google Scholar
Henkin, Louis. 1962. Shelley v. Kraemer: Notes for a Revised Opinion. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 110 (4): 473–505.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Harold W. 1957. The Misleading Search for “State Action” Under the Fourteenth Amendment. Southern California Law Review 30 (2): 208–21.Google Scholar
Irons, Peter. 1990. “I'm at the Mercy of My Customers.” In The Courage of Their Convictions, ed. Irons, Peter, 129–40. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Johnson, Whittington B. 1978. The Vinson Court and Racial Segregation, 1946–1953. Journal of Negro History 63 (3): 220–30.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ronald. 1999. Institutionalized Norms and Supreme Court Decision‐Making: The Rehnquist Court on Privacy and Religion. In Supreme Court Decision‐Making: New Institutionalist Approaches, ed. Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard, 175–98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Karst, Kenneth L., and Horowitz, Harold W. 1967. Reitman v. Mulkey: A Telophase of Substantive Equal Protection. Supreme Court Review 1967:39–80.Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2004. The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Activism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2007. Party Politics or Judicial Independence? The Regime Politics Literature Hits the Law Schools. Law & Social Inquiry 32 (2): 511–44.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael. 1991. An Interpretive History of Modern Equal Protection. Michigan Law Review 90 (2): 213–318.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael. 2004. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kort, Fred. 1957. Predicting Supreme Court Cases Mathematically: Analysis of the Right to Counsel Cases. American Political Science Review 51 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Kurland, Philip B. 1964. Foreword: Equal in Origin and Equal in Title to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government. Harvard Law Review 78 (1): 142–76.Google Scholar
Lefberg, Irving. 1975. Chief Justice Vinson and the Politics of Desegregation. Emory Law Journal 24 (2): 243–312.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10: 134–53.Google Scholar
McMahon, Kevin J. 2004. Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, Kevin J. Forthcoming. Nixon's Court: The Silent Majority and the Conservative Counterrevolution That Was. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Charles. 1969. The Supreme Court and the Uses of History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Mark C., and Barnes, Jeb, eds. 2004. Making Policy, Making Law. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Nerken, Ira. 1977. A New Deal for the Protection of Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Challenging the Doctrinal Bases of the Civil Rights Cases and State Action Theory. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 12 (2): 297–366.Google Scholar
Newman, Roger. 1994. Hugo Black. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Timothy J. 1981. The Language of Equality in a Democratic Order. American Political Science Review 75 (3): 626–35.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terri Jennings. 1999. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Michael J. 1984. The Inevitable Incoherence of Modern State Action Doctrine. Saint Louis University Law Journal 28 (3): 683–743.Google Scholar
Post, Robert C., and Siegel, Reva B. 2000. Equal Protection by Law: Federal Antidiscrimination Legislation after Morrison and Kimel . Yale Law Journal 110 (3): 441–526.Google Scholar
Powe, Lucas A. Jr. 2000. The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study of Judicial Values and Votes, 1937–48. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Quinn, Thomas G. 1976. State Action: A Pathology and a Proposed Cure. California Law Review 64 (1): 146–79.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Hayward D. 1994. Deconstructing State Action: The Politics of State Action. Ohio Northern University Law Review 20 (4): 847–929.Google Scholar
Richards, Mark J., and Kritzer, Herbert M. 2002. Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making. American Political Science Review 96 (2): 305–20.Google Scholar
Risen, Clay. 2006. How the South Was Won. Boston Globe. March 5. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/03/05/how_the_south_was_won/?page=full (accessed October 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Christopher W. 2008. The Sit‐Ins and the Failed State Action Revolution. Working Paper Series. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1254661 (accessed November 4, 2009).Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1984. Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1984. American Political Science Review 78 (4): 891–900.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D. 1989. Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Epstein, Lee, Cameron, Charles M., and Spaeth, Harold J. 1995. Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited. Journal of Politics 57 (3): 812–23.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin M. 1978. The Constitution and Economic Rights. In Essays on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Harmon, M. Judd, 74–98. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press.Google Scholar
Silard, John. 1966. A Constitutional Forecast: Demise of the “State Action” Limit on the Equal Protection Clause. Columbia Law Review 66 (5): 855–72.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 1988. Political Jurisprudence, the “New Institutionalism,” and the Future of Public Law. American Political Science Review 82 (1): 89–108.Google Scholar
St. Clair, James E., and Gugin, Linda C. 2002. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson of Kentucky: A Political Biography. Louisville: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Stone, Christopher D. 1982. Corporate Vices and Corporate Virtues: Do Public/Private Distinctions Matter? University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 (6): 1441–509.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2006. The Supreme Court and the National Political Order: Collaboration and Confrontation. In The Supreme Court & American Political Development, ed. Kahn, Ronald and Kersch, Ken I., 117–37. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2008. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van Alstyne, William W., and Karst, Kenneth L. 1961. State Action. Stanford Law Review 14 (1): 3–58.Google Scholar
Virginia Law Review. 1974. NOTE: State Action and the Burger Court. Virginia Law Review 60 (5): 840–63.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Webster, McKenzie. 2001. NOTE: The Warren Court's Struggle with the Sit‐In Cases and the Constitutionality of Segregation in Places of Public Accommodations. Journal of Law & Politics 17 (2): 373–407.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2005. “Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 99 (4): 583–96.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).Google Scholar
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308 (1968).Google Scholar
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).Google Scholar
Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (1953).Google Scholar
Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964).Google Scholar
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).Google Scholar
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973).Google Scholar
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).Google Scholar
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926).Google Scholar
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).Google Scholar
Evans v. Abney, 396 US 435 (1970).Google Scholar
Evans v. Newton, 382 US 296 (1966).Google Scholar
Flagg Brothers, Inc., v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978).Google Scholar
Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961).Google Scholar
Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U.S. 556 (1974).Google Scholar
Gordon v. Gordon, 349 U.S. 947 (1955).Google Scholar
Grovey v. Townsend, 295 US 45 (1935).Google Scholar
Hamm v. Rock Hill, 379 US 306 (1964).Google Scholar
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).Google Scholar
Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976).Google Scholar
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974).Google Scholar
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).Google Scholar
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 US 294 (1964).Google Scholar
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000).Google Scholar
Korematsu v. US, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).Google Scholar
Lloyd Corporation, Limited v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972).Google Scholar
Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267 (1963).Google Scholar
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982).Google Scholar
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).Google Scholar
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819).Google Scholar
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).Google Scholar
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972).Google Scholar
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988).Google Scholar
Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932).Google Scholar
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).Google Scholar
Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973).Google Scholar
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984).Google Scholar
Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 (1986).Google Scholar
Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of City of Philadelphia, 353 U.S. 230 (1957).Google Scholar
Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963).Google Scholar
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).Google Scholar
Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952).Google Scholar
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967).Google Scholar
Rendell‐Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982).Google Scholar
Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc., 349 U.S. 70 (1955).Google Scholar
Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976).Google Scholar
San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987).Google Scholar
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).Google Scholar
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).Google Scholar
Swann v. Charlotte‐Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).Google Scholar
Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).Google Scholar
University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).Google Scholar
US v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).Google Scholar
US v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).Google Scholar
US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).Google Scholar
US v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).Google Scholar
US v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).Google Scholar
US v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).Google Scholar
US v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966).Google Scholar
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).Google Scholar
Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (1879).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335).Google Scholar
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241).Google Scholar
The Fair Housing Act of 1968, also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90–284, 82 Stat. 81).Google Scholar
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, also known as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Ch. 22, 17 Stat. 13, codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. sec. 241, 42 U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985(3), and 1988).Google Scholar
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (89 Pub. L. 110, 79 Stat. 437).Google Scholar