Does Shelly v. Kramer somehow justify the following of an unenforceable covenant that discriminates against race?
The court in Shelly v Kramer was faced with the same dilemma and chose not to enforce it, claiming to do so would amount to state sanctioned discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment. However, it did not invalidate the covenant. I suspect that wise counsel for the defendant in this action would raise the impairment of contracts issue and again neutralize the court.