미국헌법상 재판에 대한 위헌심사와 공ㆍ사 분리논쟁

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Shelley v. Kraemer, the most famous 1948 decision that was not allowed state courts from enforcing racially restrictive covenants, has proven to be a very difficult decision to conform to public/private distinction in U.S. Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the racial restrictive covenants themselves were legal, but that judicial enforcement of the covenants violated the Equal Protection Clause because court enforces it. But Shelley's logic would destroy the distinction between state action, to which constitutional limitations apply, and private action. Some scholars advocate the abandonment of the state action doctrine completely, Others believes that the state action doctrine should remain because of keeping private autonomy. This article shows Shelley Decision in to details, the reasons that the Supreme Court and lower courts have not expanded Shelley's rationale and that many scholarly efforts to explain Shelley propro and con. Then this article reviews the problem of the constitutional review on civil court decision in Constitutional Court of Korea.