245 U.S. 60 (1917)
Buchanan brought an action in the Chancery Branch of Jefferson Circuit Court of Kentucky for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain real estate situated in the City of Louisville at the corner of 37th Street and Pflanz Avenue.1 The offer in writing to purchase the property contained a proviso that the purchaser would not be required to accept a deed or pay for the property unless he had the right under the laws of the State of Kentucky and the City of Louisville to occupy the property as a residence.2 This offer was accepted by the plaintiff.3
To the action the defendant by way of answer set up that he is a colored person.4 He also set up that under the ordinance of the City of Louisville, approved May 11, 1914, he would not be allowed to occupy the lot as a place of residence.5 On the block of which the lot in controversy is part there are ten residences.6 Eight of them were occupied by white people and only two by colored people.7 In reply the plaintiff set up that the ordinance was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.8
In the court of original jurisdiction and in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky the case was made to turn upon the constitutional validity of the ordinance.9 The Court of Appeals held the ordinance valid and of itself a complete defense to the action.10 The title of the ordinance states its purpose to prevent conflict and ill-feeling between the white and colored races in the City of Louisville and to preserve the public peace and promote the general welfare by making reasonable provisions requiring as far as practicable the use of separate blocks for residences by white and colored people respectively.11
By the first section of the ordinance it is made unlawful for any colored person to move into and occupy as a residence any house upon any block upon which a greater number of houses are occupied as residences by white people than by colored people.12 Section 2 provides a corresponding prohibition for white persons.13 Section 4 provides that nothing in the ordinance shall affect the location of residences made previous to its approval and includes exceptions for servants, existing rights, and continuing leases under specified conditions.14
The assignments of error attack the ordinance upon the ground that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States to acquire and enjoy property, takes property without due process of law, and denies equal protection of the laws.15 An objection was made that the writ of error should be dismissed because the plaintiff in error is a white person and the ordinance affects the rights of colored persons.16
Whether the white plaintiff in error may attack the constitutionality of the ordinance?17
Attacks upon the validity of laws can only be entertained when made by those whose rights are directly affected by the law or ordinance in question. Only such persons can be heard to attack the constitutionality of the law or ordinance.18
Yes. The property here involved was sold by the plaintiff in error, a white man, on the terms stated, to a colored man.19 The action for specific performance was entertained in the Kentucky courts.20 In both courts the plaintiff’s right to have the contract enforced was denied solely because of the effect of the ordinance making it illegal for a colored person to occupy the lot sold.21 But for the ordinance the state courts would have enforced the contract.22 The defendant would have been compelled to pay the purchase price and take a conveyance of the premises.23
The right of the plaintiff in error to sell his property was directly involved.24 It was necessarily impaired because it was held in effect that he could not sell the lot to a person of color who was willing and ready to acquire the property and had obligated himself to take it.25 This case does not come within the class wherein this court has held that where one seeks to avoid the enforcement of a law or ordinance he must present a grievance of his own and not rest the attack upon the alleged violation of another’s rights.26 In this case the property rights of the plaintiff in error are directly and necessarily involved.27
The white plaintiff in error may attack the constitutionality of the ordinance because his own property rights are directly affected.28
Whether the Louisville ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?29
The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law.30 Property includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose of it.31 The police power cannot justify the passage of a law or ordinance which runs counter to the limitations of the Federal Constitution.32
Yes. This ordinance prevents the occupancy of a lot in the City of Louisville by a person of color in a block where the greater number of residences are occupied by white persons.33 Where such a majority exists colored persons are excluded.34 This interdiction is based wholly upon color, simply that and nothing more.35 In effect, premises situated as are those in question in the so-called white block are effectively debarred from sale to persons of color.36 If sold they cannot be occupied by the purchaser nor by him sold to another of the same color.37
The authority of the State to pass laws in the exercise of the police power is broad.38 The police power cannot justify the passage of a law or ordinance which runs counter to the limitations of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are the supreme law of the land.39 The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law. Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns.40
Property includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose of it. The Constitution protects these essential attributes of property.41 The concrete question here is whether the occupancy, and necessarily the purchase and sale of property of which occupancy is an incident, may be inhibited by the States solely because of the color of the proposed occupant of the premises.42 Following the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment made all persons born or naturalized in the United States citizens and provided that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, and that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.43
The statute of 1866 expressly provided that all citizens of the United States in any State shall have the same right to purchase property as is enjoyed by white citizens.44 Colored persons are citizens of the United States and have the right to purchase property and enjoy and use the same without laws discriminating against them solely on account of color.45 The attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color was not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State and is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law.46 That being the case the ordinance cannot stand.47
The Louisville ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.48