No. The government absolutely has the power to pass this law. When hotels refuse to serve Black travelers, it makes it much harder for them to travel between states. This travel is a big part of the nation's economy ('interstate commerce'), which the government is in charge of protecting. If racial discrimination hurts the national economy, the government can step in and stop it. The hotel's arguments that the law takes its property or forces it into 'slavery' are just wrong; it's a reasonable rule for businesses that serve the public.

No. The Court's decision is correct. Think of it this way: one hotel discriminating might seem like a small, local issue. But when you add up all the hotels and restaurants across the country doing the same thing, it creates a huge problem for interstate travel and business. The government has the power to solve that big national problem.

No, but the Court should have used a better reason. This isn't just about business and money; it's about human rights. The Constitution has the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal rights. The decision should have been based on that powerful idea, because treating people fairly is more important than regulating trade. Using the 14th Amendment would have made it clear that all public places must be open to everyone, period.

No, and I want to add an important point. The main reason for this law isn't about business, it's about dignity. Being told 'you can't come in' because of your race is deeply humiliating. The law was passed to stop that kind of harm, and the government had the power to do it under both its authority over commerce and its duty to protect equal rights.

Yes, the government did the right thing. The law is fair because when hotels and restaurants treat people unfairly based on race, it can mess up business between states. The government can use its power to make sure businesses are fair to everyone, and it doesn't always need to show exactly how business is hurt. The main point of the law is to make sure people are treated with respect and can go to public places without being turned away because of their race. The Court said the hotel's arguments about the law breaking other Constitution rules were not correct.

Justice Black agreed that the law was okay under the government's power to control business between states. He said there was a lot of proof that treating people badly because of their race in public places made it harder to do business between states. He also said the government's power covers things that have a big effect on business between states, even if the thing itself happens in one state. Justice Black also said the hotel's arguments about the law breaking other Constitution rules were wrong.

Justice Douglas agreed with the Court but wished the decision was based more on the part of the Constitution that says states can't treat people unfairly. He believed people have a right to not face discrimination by the state based on their race. Justice Douglas said the government could make this law under both its business power and the rule against state discrimination. He thought using the discrimination rule would make things more clear and settle the issue better.

Justice Goldberg joined with the Court and agreed the law was okay under the government's business power. But he said the main reason for the law was to protect human dignity, not just money stuff. Justice Goldberg believed the Constitution gives people the right to go to public places without discrimination and that the government can make laws to protect this right using both the business power and the rule against state discrimination.

Yes, the government can make a law that stops hotels and restaurants from turning away people because of their skin color. The law is fair because when hotels and restaurants treat people unfairly based on race, it can mess up business between states. The government can use its power to make sure businesses are fair to everyone, and it doesn't always need to show exactly how business is hurt. The main point of the law is to make sure people are treated with respect and can go to public places without being turned away because of their race. The hotel's arguments about the law breaking other Constitution rules are not correct.

Yes, the government can make a law that stops hotels and restaurants from turning away people because of their skin color under its power to control business between states. There is a lot of proof that treating people badly because of their race in public places makes it harder to do business between states. The government's power covers things that have a big effect on business between states, even if the thing itself happens in one state. The hotel's arguments about the law breaking other Constitution rules are wrong.

Yes, I agree that the government can make a law that stops hotels and restaurants from turning away people because of their skin color, but I wish the decision was based more on the part of the Constitution that says states can't treat people unfairly. People have a right not to face discrimination by the state based on their race. The government can make this law under both its business power and the rule against state discrimination. Using the discrimination rule would make things more clear and settle the issue better.

Yes, I agree that the government can make a law that stops hotels and restaurants from turning away people because of their skin color under its business power. But the main reason for the law is to protect human dignity, not just economic concerns. The Constitution gives people the right to go to public places without discrimination, and the government can make laws to protect this right using both its business power and the rule against state discrimination.

—challenge to Congress' authority to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; having found Congress possessed the power under the Commerce Clause to enact the legislation, the court held that there was no need to consider any other basis (Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment

—upholding anti-discrimination in service provisions of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as applied to restaurants and hotels engaged in interstate commerce

Congress' authority "to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral or injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question."

Commerce Clause challenges to the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which contained no congressional findings.

The Supreme Court has stated that upholding Title VII is a proper exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

—the fundamental object of [federal civil rights legislation] was to vindicate `the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments

A demonstrable quantitative effect is not necessary: "[T] he power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities... which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce."

—describing, pre-Lopez, "the overwhelming evidence of the disruptive effect that racial discrimination has had on commercial intercourse

On the other hand, other decisions by the Court clearly permit Congress to extend the legal protection of fundamental rights.

However, the Supreme Court does have authority to strike down statutory provisions as unconstitutional, as was implicitly done in Birchfield.

No. Congress acted within its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court reasoned that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is plenary and includes the authority to regulate local activities that have a substantial and harmful effect on that commerce. The legislative record contained overwhelming evidence that racial discrimination by hotels and motels impeded interstate travel for Black Americans, thus burdening interstate commerce. The Court distinguished the Civil Rights Cases (1883), noting that the decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment and did not fully consider the Commerce Clause, and that the modern volume of interstate travel gives discriminatory practices a far greater impact than in the past. The Court also rejected the motel's Fifth Amendment claims, holding that the Act was a reasonable regulation, not a taking of property, and that the motel had no right to select its guests free from such regulation. The Thirteenth Amendment claim of 'involuntary servitude' was found to be without merit.

No. The anti-racial-discrimination provisions of Title II are a valid exercise of congressional power. The commerce power, as established since Gibbons v. Ogden, is plenary and extends to protecting interstate commerce from activities that adversely affect it. While a single motel's actions might seem local, the aggregate effect of widespread discrimination by thousands of similar establishments imposes a significant burden on interstate commerce by discouraging travel and distorting the flow of goods. The Fifth Amendment does not nullify this broad regulatory power, as regulation of property use is not a constitutional 'taking'.

No. While joining the Court's opinion, the decision should have been based on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than solely on the Commerce Clause. A ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment would have a more settling effect, as the right to be free from discrimination is a fundamental human right that occupies a more protected constitutional position than the movement of commercial goods. This approach would apply to all public accommodations without the need for litigation over their specific connection to interstate commerce, thereby ending obstructionist strategies and closing a 'bitter chapter in American history.' The Act itself contains language invoking both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, and both provide a proper basis for the legislation.

No. The Court is correct that the Act is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power, but the primary purpose of the legislation should be underscored. The Act's main goal is the vindication of human dignity, not merely economics. Racial discrimination inflicts humiliation and embarrassment, and the law was intended to address this deprivation of personal dignity. Congress clearly had the authority under both the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact this legislation to protect the constitutional right of all Americans to be treated as equal members of the community.

Yes, Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress's power because racial discrimination in places of public accommodation imposes significant burdens on interstate commerce. The Act is also supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing Congress to choose reasonable and appropriate means to regulate commerce and protect individual rights. The court emphasized that Congress has the authority to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral or injurious uses, and that a demonstrable quantitative effect is not necessary to regulate local activities that might have a substantial and harmful effect on commerce. The fundamental object of the federal civil rights legislation was to vindicate the deprivation of personal dignity that accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments. The Court rejected the motel's arguments that the Act violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments, finding no merit in these claims.

Justice Black agreed that the Civil Rights Act was a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, as there was ample evidence that racial discrimination in public accommodations burdened and obstructed interstate commerce. He emphasized that the power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states but extends to activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the activity itself is local. Justice Black also rejected the motel's Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment arguments.

Justice Douglas, while agreeing with the Court's opinion, expressed his preference to rest the decision on the Fourteenth Amendment rather than solely on the Commerce Clause. He believed that the right of people to be free from state-sponsored racial discrimination is a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Douglas argued that Congress had the power under both the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the Civil Rights Act. He emphasized that resting the decision on the Fourteenth Amendment would have a more settling effect and make further litigation unnecessary.

Justice Goldberg joined the opinions and judgments of the Court, agreeing that the Civil Rights Act was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. However, he emphasized that the primary purpose of the Act was the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics. Justice Goldberg expressed his conviction that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to equal access to public accommodations and that Congress has the authority under both Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause to enact laws protecting this right.

Yes, Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress's power because racial discrimination in places of public accommodation imposes significant burdens on interstate commerce. The Act is also supported by the Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing Congress to choose reasonable and appropriate means to regulate commerce and protect individual rights. We emphasized that Congress has the authority to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral or injurious uses, and that a demonstrable quantitative effect is not necessary to regulate local activities that might have a substantial and harmful effect on commerce. The fundamental object of the federal civil rights legislation was to vindicate the deprivation of personal dignity that accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments. We rejected the motel's arguments that the Act violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments, finding no merit in these claims.

I agree that the Civil Rights Act was a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, as there was ample evidence that racial discrimination in public accommodations burdened and obstructed interstate commerce. I emphasize that the power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states but extends to activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the activity itself is local. I also reject the motel's Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment arguments.

While I agree with the Court's opinion, I express my preference to rest the decision on the Fourteenth Amendment rather than solely on the Commerce Clause. I believe that the right of people to be free from state-sponsored racial discrimination is a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. I argue that Congress has the power under both the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the Civil Rights Act. I emphasize that resting the decision on the Fourteenth Amendment would have a more settling effect and make further litigation unnecessary.

I join the opinions and judgments of the Court, agreeing that the Civil Rights Act was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. However, I emphasize that the primary purpose of the Act was the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics. I express my conviction that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to equal access to public accommodations and that Congress has the authority under both Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause to enact laws protecting this right.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot