HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL V. UNITED STATES
379 U.S. 241 (1964)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal of a decision upholding portions of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The original action was a declaratory judgment action which was appealed
from a court issued injunction prohibiting violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
FACTS: The Heart of Atlanta Motel (P) had always limited its guests to white people. In
1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed, making this practice illegal, since it discriminated
on the basis of race. Congress passed this Act under the power given to it by the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution. The motel is readily accessible to interstate highways 75 and 85
and state highways 23 and 41. Appellant solicits patronage from outside the State of Georgia
through various national advertising media, and maintains over 50 billboards and highway
signs within the State. Approximately 75% of its registered guests are from out of State.
The motel refused to rent rooms to Negroes. P contends that Congress exceeded its power to
regulate commerce and that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because P is deprived of the
right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in a taking
of its liberty and property without due process of law and a taking of its property without
just compensation. P also claims that Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in
contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment. The United States (D) contends that the
unavailability to Negroes of adequate accommodations interferes significantly with
interstate travel, and that Congress, under the Commerce Clause, has power to remove such
obstructions and restraints; that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid reasonable regulation,
and that consequential damage does not constitute a 'taking' within the meaning of that
amendment; that the Thirteenth Amendment claim fails because it is entirely frivolous to say
that an amendment directed to the abolition of human bondage and the removal of widespread
disabilities associated with slavery places discrimination in public accommodations beyond
the reach of both federal and state law. The District Court restrained P from '[r]efusing to
accept Negroes as guests in the motel by reason of their race or color' and from [m]aking
any distinction whatever upon the basis of race or color in the availability of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations offered or made available to
the guests of the motel, or to the general public.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment