Racial issues go directly to equal treatment under the law, clearly a Constitutional issue.
Specifically by Amendments XIV and XV, which address a plethora of other issues concerning rights of individual citizens.
Amendment XIV, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment XV, Section 1:
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude-- [sic]
On the other hand, in the Connecticut eminent domain case under discussion, the plaintiffs hung their hat on one phrase in Amendment V:
nor shall private property be taken for public use
As opponents of gun ownership have been taught repeatedly, one cannot ignore a prepositional phrase in the Constitution and hope no one will notice. The entire clause, with its prepositional phrase, reads:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The plaintiffs apparently believed that they could claim that the municipality could offer them no compensation that is sufficiently just, in other words, that their property is priceless, and expected the Court to buy that. Some of the justices did.
The majority held that the local government, without more precise guidance from the people, could abide by the laws on the books governing eminent domain, in agreement with Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The right reserved to the people in this case, pointedly mentioned by the majority opinion, is the one by which the people may change their laws to forbid the municipality from condemning property for the use of a private organization.
Please notice that the individual rights to which you refer are obviously within the Federal government's duty to defend, as per Amendment X, in the enforcement of Amendments XIV and XV.
Also, as per Amendment XIV, the plaintiffs in the eminent domain case are probably going to be deprived of property (though compensated for it), but due process of law has been pursued, and to the endth degree if you please.
So yes, you understand me right. Or correctly. :)