
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
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
1 / 1
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
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