Hansberry v. Lee

A restrictive covenant in a Chicago neighborhood required that 95 percent of the property owners sign the covenant before it became effective. In Burke v. Kleiman, a prior class action, the Illinois courts had upheld the covenant's validity, finding that the 95 percent threshold had been met. However, the finding was fraudulent — the threshold had never actually been reached. Carl Hansberry, an African American man whose family is the basis for Lorraine Hansberry's play 'A Raisin in the Sun,' purchased property in the restricted area. Anna Lee and others sued to enforce the covenant, arguing that the prior class judgment in Burke v. Kleiman was binding on Hansberry as a member of the class.

Justice Stone's opinion recognized that class actions are an exception to the general rule that a judgment binds only parties to the litigation. This exception is constitutionally permissible only when the interests of the absent members are adequately represented by the named parties. Where the interests of those said to be represented are actually adverse to the interests of the representative parties, due process is not satisfied. In this case, the parties in Burke v. Kleiman sought to enforce the restrictive covenant, while Hansberry sought to challenge it. Their interests were fundamentally opposed, making adequate representation impossible.

Hansberry established the constitutional floor for class action practice: adequate representation is a due process requirement, not merely a procedural nicety. This principle was later codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which requires courts to ensure that class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The case also has profound historical significance as it involved the real-life family that inspired 'A Raisin in the Sun' and addressed the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants.