BURTON v. WILMINGTON PARKING AUTHORITY 365 U.S. 715 (1961)

Burton exemplifies the interest-balancing approach to the state action limitation of the fourteenth amendment used by the Supreme Court during the Chief Justiceship of earl warren. a private restaurant, leasing space in a publicly owned parking structure, refused to serve burton because he was black. in a state court action, burton sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the restaurant's refusal amounted to state action denying him the equal protection of the laws. The state courts denied relief, but the Supreme Court reversed, 7–2, holding the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to the restaurant's conduct.

Public agencies owned the land and the building, had floated bonds, were collecting revenues to pay for the building's construction and maintenance, and received rent payments from the restaurant. The restaurant could expect to draw customers from persons parking in the structure; correspondingly, some might park there because of the restaurant's convenience. Profits earned from the restaurant's racial discrimination, the Court said, were indispensable elements in an integral financial plan. All these interrelated mutual benefits taken together amounted to significant involvement of the state in the private racial discrimination. Justice tom c. clark, for the majority, disclaimed any pretensions of establishing a general rule about state aid to private discrimination, or even for the leasing of state property. Under "the peculiar facts or circumstances" here, the state action limitation was satisfied.

Justice potter stewart, concurring, said simply that a state statute permitting a restaurant's proprietor to refuse service to persons offensive to a majority of patrons amounted to official authorization of private discrimination—a theme explored later in reitman v. mulkey (1967). Justice john marshall harlan dissented, joined by Justice charles e. whittaker. Harlan complained that the majority had offered no guidance for determining when the state action limitation would be satisfied. Rather than pursue this inquiry, he urged a remand to the state courts for further illumination of the "authorization" question raised by Justice Stewart.

Kenneth L. Karst
(1986)