In the 1952 case of Barrows et al. v. Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a white property owner who had been sued for selling her house to an African American couple, violating racially restrictive covenants attached to her property deed. These covenants were agreements between homeowners not to sell or rent their properties to certain racial or ethnic groups and were common during this period in history as a means of maintaining segregation. The court held that while these covenants themselves could not be enforced due to previous rulings (Shelley v Kraemer), third parties could also not enforce them through legal action against those who violated them by selling or renting properties covered by such agreements. This decision was significant because it further eroded the legality and enforceability of racially restrictive housing practices, contributing towards ending de jure residential segregation.

In the dissenting opinion for Barrows v. Jackson, Justice Reed argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it was a private dispute and did not involve state action. He contended that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to actions by states, not individuals. Therefore, he believed that racial restrictive covenants in property deeds were enforceable between private parties because they do not involve state action. Furthermore, he asserted that if such covenants are deemed unenforceable due to public policy reasons or other legal principles outside of the Fourteenth Amendment's scope, it should be up to individual states' courts rather than federal courts to make those determinations.