Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract This paper examines a segment of the legal historical geography of race and racism in the U.S. from 1917–45. It focuses on conflicting judicial interpretations of the meaning and applicability of‘the doctrine of changed conditions’ in connection with disputes about racially restrictive covenants. I analyze the ways in which ideological conceptions of space can infuse legal thought itself, and how legal pronouncements informed by such conceptions contribute to the shaping of geographies of power. I also examine the ways in which the spatiality of a rule can be manipulated so as to yield the desired interpretation. I suggest implications of this analysis for questions within legal geography and for geographical theory more generally.
David Delaney (Mon,) studied this question.