901 F.3d 753
6th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Darryl Mason, an African-American Ohio resident, sued all 88 Ohio county recorders under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, challenging the public maintenance and publication of historical land records that contain racially restrictive covenants.
- Mason attached 29 recorded land documents (dated 1922–1957) containing restrictive covenants; those covenants have been unenforceable since Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).
- Mason sought injunctive relief requiring county recorders to stop printing/publishing, to remove or redact, and to permit inspection/redaction of such records.
- The district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for lack of Article III standing; Mason appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Mason failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury traceable to the recorders that would likely be redressed by the requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mason has Article III standing to sue county recorders under § 3604(c) for maintaining/publishing historical racially restrictive covenants | Keeping and publishing these documents causes discriminatory effects (discouragement, stigma, economic deterrence) and thus injures Mason and others | Mason alleged only generalized/stigmatic injury; no particularized economic or imminent injury, recorders merely maintain public records as required by statute | No standing: Mason failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury; generalized grievance insufficient |
| Whether the alleged injury is causally traceable to county recorders | Mason: recorders’ publication of the documents causes the harm | Recorders: the harm, if any, stems from the covenants' drafters and historical authors; recorders are ministerial custodians required by state law to record public documents | Held for defendants: injury not fairly traceable to recorders' ministerial acts |
| Whether the injury is redressable by enjoining recorders from publishing or by ordering removal/redaction | Mason: injunctive relief would remove the offensive language and redress stigma/economic chill | Recorders: they lack statutory authority to alter recorded documents; courts cannot order recorders to edit or erase historical records | Held: redressability lacking because requested relief would not be within recorders’ lawful powers and is speculative |
| Whether historical, unenforceable covenants can constitute actionable "making, printing, or publishing" under § 3604(c) | Mason: publication of the covenants constitutes prohibited "printing/publishing" of statements indicating racial preference | Defendants: covenants are historical, unenforceable, and their publication does not amount to current actionable discrimination | Held: Court treated the language as historical and unenforceable, and Mason did not plead a cognizable individualized injury from their mere publication |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (state enforcement of racially restrictive covenants is prohibited)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing requires concrete, particularized, and redressable injury)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing requires injury to the complaining party)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (standing under the Fair Housing Act construed broadly; disparate treatment in housing can create standing in certain contexts)
- Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979) (plaintiff must allege distinct and palpable injury likely redressable)
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) (Congress may legislate broadly under Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate badges and incidents of slavery)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (generalized stigmatic injury may not confer standing absent particularized harm)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (generalized grievances about government conduct do not confer standing)