Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.: Civil Rights & Commerce Clause in 1964 Act, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Information about the landmark supreme court case, heart of atlanta motel v. U.s., decided in 1964. The case centered around title ii of the civil rights act of 1964, which forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation affecting interstate commerce. The heart of atlanta motel in atlanta, georgia, refused to accept black americans and was charged with violating title ii. The event dates, the subjects involved, the question presented, and the conclusion of the case, as well as the opinions of the justices and the advocates involved.

Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research

2011/2012

Uploaded on 12/11/2012

amulya
amulya 🇮🇳

5

(3)

123 documents

1 / 1

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Title:
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
US Citation:
379 U.S. 241 (1964)
Docket:
515
Events:
Argued - October 5, 1964
Decided - December 14, 1964
Subjects:
Civil Rights: Desegregation
Facts:
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of
public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of
Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was
charged with violating Title II.
Question
Presented:
Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its
Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of
the right to choose their own customers?
Conclusion:
The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local
inci
dents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional
muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to
enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods
and people. . ." The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation
had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.
Justices:
Hugo L. Black - (Special Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
William O. Douglas - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
Tom C. Clark - (Majority) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
Earl Warren - (Majority) Chief justice
John M. Harlan - (Majority) Associate justice
William J. Brennan, Jr. - (Majority) Associate justice
Potter Stewart - (Majority) Associate justice
Byron R. White - (Majority) Associate justice
Arthur J. Goldberg - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion
Advocates:
Moreton Rolleston, Jr. - argued the cause for the appellant
Solicitor General Archibald Cox - argued the cause for the United States

Partial preview of the text

Download Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.: Civil Rights & Commerce Clause in 1964 Act and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Title: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

US Citation: 379 U.S. 241 (1964)

Docket:^515

Events: Argued - October 5, 1964 Decided - December 14, 1964

Subjects: Civil Rights: Desegregation

Facts: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating Title II.

Question Presented:

Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?

Conclusion: The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people.. ." The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.

Justices: Hugo L. Black - (Special Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion William O. Douglas - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion Tom C. Clark - (Majority) Associate justice, wrote an opinion Earl Warren - (Majority) Chief justice John M. Harlan - (Majority) Associate justice William J. Brennan, Jr. - (Majority) Associate justice Potter Stewart - (Majority) Associate justice Byron R. White - (Majority) Associate justice Arthur J. Goldberg - (Regular Concurrence) Associate justice, wrote an opinion

Advocates: Moreton Rolleston, Jr. - argued the cause for the appellant Solicitor General Archibald Cox - argued the cause for the United States