How Is Shelley V. Kraemer Restrictive Covenant?

Shelley v. Kraemer was a landmark case that abolished the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants. The issue began with the Shelley family purchasing a property in St. Louis that had a racially restrictive covenant in the deed. The white homeowner group belonging to the Marcus Avenue Improvement Association fought against this purchase because of the existence of a restrictive covenant. The covenant at issue here states that the property could not be “occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race.” (INVISIBLE WALLS, pp. 8)
Supreme Court of Missouri Decision
Kraemer, under the support of the association, filed for an injunction preventing Shelley from gaining access to the property because of the pre-existing restrictive covenant
It does not violate the 14th amendment right of individual and does not forbid state actions of enforcing RRCs. Kraemer states that Shelley have not been denied Property rights or civil rights rather, Shelley seeks to deprive Kraemer of property rights. Kraemer claims that Shelley’s right under 14th amendment was not deprived since the agreement was created by a “private party” (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Respondent's Brief SCOTUS, pp. 3-6)
ACLU amicus curiae brief American civil liberties union submitted an amicus brief that opposed the RRCs. ACLU argued similar to Shelly focusing mostly of states enforcement of RRCs and how RRCs go against the public policy of the country. They state that if enforcement of the RRC in the case is deemed as a state action, it violates the due process and Equal protection clause under 14th Amendment. ACLU further argues how RRCs overrides the public policy that condemns racial discrimination (cited in Shelley v Kraemer Original Amicus Brief ACLU SCOTUS, pp. 4-6, 27-29).
Supreme Court Decision The supreme court held that a State action to enforce a racially restrictive covenant violates the equal protection of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment (Shelley v. Kraemer SCOTUS, pp.