Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

ATLANTA MOTEL v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)

379 U.S. 241

In the Court of: U.S. Supreme Court

Argued on: October 5, 1964

Decided on: December 14, 1964.

Facts

Reasons for the Lawsuit:

The appellant is the owner of a large motel (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc.) in Atlanta, Georgia who restricts his clientele to white people, 75% of whom are inter-state travelers. He has filed a suit to perpetuate his policy of refusing rooms to Negroes. The defendants or appellees are the United States et al.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant contends that in passing and enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the congress has exceeded its power to regulate commerce under Art. I, 8, cl. 3, of the U.S. constitution.

The Act violates the Fifth Amendment as the appellant is deprived of the right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in taking of its liberty and property without due process of law and compensation.

By requiring appellant to rent rooms to Negroes, the Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Arguments of the Appellees

The unavailability of adequate accommodation to Negroes interferes with interstate travel.

The Congress has powers under the Commerce Clause to remove such restrictions.

The Fifth Amendment does not forbid such regulation

The claim about violation of Thirteenth Amendment is frivolous.

Previous Decision

3-judge District Court previously upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 and permanently enjoined appellant from refusing to accommodate Negro guests for racial reasons.

Issue

The issue before the court is to decide the constitutionality or application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 to the case.

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

Reasons

The Congress based the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and its power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. I, 8, cl. 3 of the constitution.

That the Congress possessed ample power in this regard and the "commerce power" alone is sufficient for a decision in this case.

There is overwhelming evidence that discrimination in providing accommodation to Negroes by hotels and motels impedes interstate travel.

The power of the Congress to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause is to simply determine whether the activity is commerce which concerns more than one State and has a substantial relation to national interest.

The power of the Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes power to regulate incidents of a local nature.