Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)

E809988

United States Supreme Court case landmark equal protection case

Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing laws violated the Equal Protection Clause by restructuring the political process to disadvantage racial minorities.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Hunter v. Erickson	2
Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) canonical	2

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9607476 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)
Context triple: [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action), reliesOnPrecedent, Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)]

A. Shaw v. Hunt
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
B. Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
C. 393 U.S. 503
393 U.S. 503 is the official United States Reports citation for the landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, which established strong First Amendment free speech protections for public school students.
D. Herring v. United States
Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
E. Berman v. Parker
Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)
Target entity description: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing laws violated the Equal Protection Clause by restructuring the political process to disadvantage racial minorities.

A. Shaw v. Hunt
Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
B. Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
C. 393 U.S. 503
393 U.S. 503 is the official United States Reports citation for the landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, which established strong First Amendment free speech protections for public school students.
D. Herring v. United States
Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
E. Berman v. Parker
Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark equal protection case ⓘ
appliedStandardOfReview	strict scrutiny ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights law ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ election law ⓘ
challengedProvision	Akron city charter amendment ⓘ
citation	393 U.S. 385 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Equal Protection Clause
constitutionalRightProtected	equal protection of the laws ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1969 ⓘ
dissentBy	Justice John M. Harlan II ⓘ linked to: John M. Harlan II
effect	invalidated Akron’s charter amendment requiring referenda for fair housing ordinances ⓘ
fullName	Hunter v. Erickson ⓘ linked to: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)
holding	a city charter amendment requiring voter approval for any ordinance regulating real estate transactions on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry violates the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ a city may not restructure its political process in a way that places special burdens on racial minorities seeking legislation ⓘ
impact	limited the ability of local governments to single out race-related legislation for special political hurdles ⓘ
issue	validity of a city charter amendment imposing special voting requirements for fair housing ordinances ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
legalDoctrine	political process doctrine ⓘ
legalPrinciple	government may not make it more difficult for racial minorities to enact beneficial legislation than for other groups ⓘ
legalRule	laws that place special burdens on racial minorities in the political process are subject to strict scrutiny ⓘ
locationOfOriginatingDispute	Akron, Ohio ⓘ linked to: Akron
lowerCourt	Supreme Court of Ohio ⓘ
lowerCourtDisposition	upheld the charter amendment ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Byron R. White ⓘ linked to: Byron R. White
page	385 ⓘ
party	Erickson (defendant) ⓘ linked to: Erickson Hunter (plaintiff) ⓘ
principleAppliedTo	racial classifications in political decision-making structures ⓘ
reasoning	the amendment placed special burdens on racial minorities seeking to secure fair housing protections ⓘ the charter amendment explicitly treated racial housing ordinances differently from other ordinances ⓘ
recognizedAs	key precedent on political restructuring and minority rights ⓘ
relatedCase	Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967) ⓘ Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) ⓘ linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
subjectMatter	fair housing ⓘ municipal referendum requirements ⓘ racial discrimination in housing ⓘ
SupremeCourtDisposition	reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio ⓘ
topic	racially targeted political restructuring ⓘ referendum requirements for civil rights legislation ⓘ
volume	393 ⓘ
vote	8–1 decision ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) → reliesOnPrecedent → Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) ⓘ

Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) → fullName → Hunter v. Erickson ⓘ

linked to: Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)

Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) → relatedTo → Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) ⓘ

Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action → distinguishesFrom → Hunter v. Erickson ⓘ