The 14^th Amendment was part of the “Civil War Amendments” or “Reconstruction Amendments,” consisting also of the 13^th and 15^th, all passed between 1865 and 1870. The 13^th Amendment states that:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 14^th Amendment states, in relevant parts, that:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws….

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Finally, the 15^th Amendment states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

All three of these amendments affect property regulation, but for our purposes, the 14^th Amendment will be the most important.

After the passage of the Civil Rights Amendments, the federal government began to pass legislation enabling enforcement of the amendments. For our purposes, the most important act is the Fair Housing Act, located at Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. In its important part, that act states:

[I]t shall be unlawful—

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(f)

(1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of—

(A) that buyer or renter,

(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or

(C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.

(2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of—

(A) that person; or

(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or

(C) any person associated with that person.

Like the Fair Housing Act, Indiana has a law which find that it is:

[T]he public policy of the state to provide all of its citizens equal opportunity for education, employment, access to public conveniences and accommodations, and acquisition through purchase or rental of real property, including but not limited to housing, and to eliminate segregation or separation based solely on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry.[1]

The Fair Housing Act and related laws outlaw three practices in real property that were common after Reconstruction, namely blockbusting, redlining, and steering.

[1] Ind. Code § 22-9-1-2.

Blockbusting was outlawed as part of the Fair Housing Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. 3604(e), which prohibits the attempt to:

“[I]nduce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.”

The following excerpt expands on the idea of “blockbusting:”

“Blockbusting”, or “panic peddling”, is not the same as panic selling. Blockbusting refers to the practice of directly inducing or persuading an individual to sell his home by representations as to the entry into his neighborhood of blacks or other minority groups. Panic selling is a broader problem which, although it may be prompted by blockbusting practices, does not depend upon direct inducements or face-to-face contact between people. Panic selling occurs when a resident who is otherwise disposed to remain in a neighborhood succumbs to any one or more of a number of pressures to move out when it appears that a minority racial group is beginning to enter. Among the fears of white residents as non-whites begin to move into their neighborhood are rising crime rates, overcrowded schools, declining property values, and a generally lower quality of life. As neighbors move away, there is also the feeling of being left behind, giving rise to the commonly-expressed fear, independent from any intrinsic hostility toward the incoming racial group, of being “the last white family on the block”. Where these fears persist and intensify, panic selling generally occurs on a wide scale….The constitutionality of “blockbusting laws” is now beyond question.[1] 

[1] Barrick Realty, Inc. v. City of Gary, Ind., 354 F. Supp. 126, 134-35 (N.D. Ind. 1973) aff'd, 491 F.2d 161 (7th Cir. 1974).

Redlining was similarly prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 3605, which states, in relevant part, that:

It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Redlining is, in essence, changing the terms or conditions of a real estate transaction, usually related to loan rates, repayment terms, etc., due to race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial statue, or national origin. Or, in other words:

Initially, the court finds that a fair and liberal reading of plaintiffs’ complaint in this action reveals two separate theories of recovery under the Fair Housing Act. First, plaintiffs allege that defendants discriminated individually against the Thomases’ by denying their loan application on the  basis of their race. Second, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants denied the Thomases’ loan application because of First Federal’s practice of “red-lining” the Thomases’ neighborhood. Red-lining is defined as “mortgage credit discrimination based on the characteristics of the neighborhood surrounding the would-be borrower’s dwelling.[1]

[1] Thomas v. First Fed. Sav. Bank of Indiana, 653 F. Supp. 1330, 1336-37 (N.D. Ind. 1987).

Steering is also outlawed by the Fair Housing Act, this time 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), which states that steering is:

To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Or, as set forth more fully by a federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan:

Steering on a racial basis (‘steering’) is prohibited by that portion of Section 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act which makes it unlawful to ‘otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.’ This section makes it unlawful to steer or channel a prospective buyer into or away from an area because of race. Unlawful steering or channeling of a prospective buyer is the use of a word or phrase or action by a real estate broker or salesperson which is intended to influence the choice of a prospective property buyer on a racial basis. Where choice influencing factors such as race are not eliminated, freedom of choice in the purchase of real estate becomes a fantasy. It is the freedom of choice for the purchaser which the Fair Housing Act protects. Hence, race need not be the sole reason for the defendant's conduct if it is an element of that conduct.[1]

[1] Zuch v. Hussey, 394 F. Supp. 1028, 1047 (E.D. Mich. 1975).