Race-restrictive covenants have a long and complicated legal history. Most state courts, in an interpretation confirmed by the Supreme Court in Corrigan v. Buckley (1926) held that such restrictive agreements were purely private contracts, and that—in the absence of state action—no constitutional issues were at stake (the Missouri case is Koehler v. Rowland, 275 Mo. 573 (1918) This interpretation was partially overturned by Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) which held that enforcement of such agreements did constitute state action, and as such violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In 1949, Missouri was one of two states to hold that, while Shelley barred taking action against black buyers, it was acceptable to sue the seller violating the restriction for damages (Weiss v. Leaon 359 Mo. 1054). This option was closed by Supreme Court decision in Barrows v Jackson (1953).
Aside from the Shelley case, restrictive covenants–especially petition covenants–were extensively litigated in St. Louis courts. The key cases are listed below. For more detail see Colin Gordon, “Dress Rehearsal for Shelley: Scovell Richardson and the Challenge to Racial Restriction in St. Louis” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 67:1 (2022).
Mueninghaus v. James, 324 Mo. 767, 24 S.W.2d 1017 (1930). Circuit court refuses to uphold a restriction, on grounds that property owner in question had not signed the agreement. Upheld by MO Supreme Court in 1930.
Pickel v. McCawley, 329 Mo. 166, 44 S.W.2d 857 (1931). Circuit court voids a 1927 restriction on the grounds the original agreement was flawed, and had failed in its purpose. MO Supreme Court upholds the decision.
Thornhill v. Herdt_ 130 S.W.2d 175 (1939). Circuit court voids restriction in same grounds as Pickel (above); MO Supreme Court agrees, but on the grounds because there were too few signatories to give the agreement “force and effect.”
Dolan v. Richardson_ 181 S.W.2d 997 (1944). Corcuit court upholds the contested restriction; Court of Appeals declines to consider case because the restriction expires before the case comes to trial.
Kraemer v. Shelley, 355 Mo. 814, 198 S.W.2d 679 (1946). St. Louis Circuit court holds restriction invalid, on ground that only 30 of 39 neighbors had signed. MO Supreme Court reverses in December 1946. Case is then bundled with Michigan (Sipes v McGee) and Washington DC (Hurd v Hodge) for consideration by the Supreme Court.
Woytus v. Winkler, 357 Mo. 1082, 212 S.W.2d 411 (1948). Similar to Kraemer. Case put on hold while Shelley is litigated at the Supreme Court, and then defers to that ruling.