Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (379 U.S. 241, 1964)
Private Discrimination
The Issue
Under the Constitution, can Congress pass a law preventing private businesses from
discriminating against people because of their race or color?
What's at Stake?
Whether Americans can be discriminated against in their daily life.
Background
This case hinged on whether the federal government has the power to make private
discrimination a crime.
This was not the first time the Court had considered the issue. In the 1880s, the Civil Rights
cases also asked whether the federal government could outlaw private discrimination under the
Constitution.
The Constitution reserves certain powers to the states and lists certain powers as belonging to the
national government. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution gave some new powers to
the federal government. The amendment was ratified [approved] in 1868. It was one of the most
important changes in the law enacted in the Reconstruction period after the Civil War.
(Reconstruction lasted from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to 1877. During Reconstruction,
the federal government tried to rebuild the Southern states on a foundation of equality.)
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination by states, thus limiting their power, but
what about discrimination by private businesses like restaurants and hotels? Congress passed a
law in 1875 that outlawed such discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 made it a crime to
deny to anyone the "full and equal enjoyment" of railways and other transportation. It also
required equal treatment in hotels, theaters and other places of public amusement.
Some businesses refused to serve African Americans. Their cases went all the way to the
Supreme Court. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment
did not give Congress the power to outlaw private discrimination. Congress could pass a law
forbidding states to discriminate, and the states could pass laws forbidding private businesses
from discriminating, but the federal government itself did not have the authority to forbid private
businesses from discriminating.
Facts
In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court was faced with a very similar issue.
Congress had outlawed discrimination in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, etc.) in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law was much like the 1875 law. As in the case of the earlier
statute, some businesses refused to serve African Americans. One of these was a motel owner in
Atlanta. His business served mostly interstate travelers. He claimed that Congress had exceeded
its authority under the Commerce Clause by regulating a local private business. He also claimed
that the law should be declared invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Decision
The Supreme Court decision was unanimous. The Court upheld the law. Justice Tom Clark wrote
for the Court. He pointed out that the Court had long upheld Congress's power to regulate
interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. One of the cases he cited was Gibbons v.
Ogden, decided in 1824.Beginning with the New Deal in the 1930s, Congress often claimed
authority to pass legislation under the Commerce Clause, and the Court generally upheld that
power. In this case, Clark said that Congress could regulate both interstate commerce and
activities within a state as part of its national "police power" to outlaw moral wrongs.
The Impact of the Decision
With the law upheld, a very powerful legal tool was available to enforce equal treatment. Over
the years, there have been fewer and fewer instances of overt [direct] racial discrimination in
public accommodations.
Find Out
1. Research the Civil Rights Cases. Explain how and why the decision there was different from
the decision in Heart of Atlanta.
2. In another 1964 case, Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964
even for a small local restaurant (Ollie's Barbeque). The Court held that even though the
restaurant's customers were local, it bought much of its supplies through interstate commerce,
and that was enough to bring it under the Commerce Clause. Compare this with the Supreme
Court's reasoning in such earlier cases as Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935)
and National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937). Do cases like
Heart of Atlanta and Katzenbach show the continuation of a trend in how the Court thinks about
the Commerce Clause?