1. Impact
1.1. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). This case against Ollie's Barbecue, a family owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, which caters to White Americans but serves only take-out to Black Americans. The restaurant has refused Black Americans in in house dining since its opening in 1927. The Act of 1964 was passed and the business continued to operate in violation of the Act.
1.1.1. Court unanimously ruled that US Congress shall enforce the Commerce Clause in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants and service to patrons
2. Facts
2.1. Parties
2.1.1. Heart of Atlanta Hotel
2.1.2. Congress
2.1.3. Black Americans
2.2. What happened?
2.2.1. The Heart of Atlanta Hotel operated with the denial of allowing Black American customers to rent any of the 216 rooms offered at the facility. The motel challenged the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that "promoted the general welfare by eliminating discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in . . . public accommodations"
2.3. Procedural history
2.3.1. Heart of Atlanta Motel established its rules and facility guidelines to not allow Black Americans to rent the rooms; this is a form of enforced discrimination, pre 1964
2.3.2. The Civil Right Act of 1964 was passed July 2, 1964
2.3.3. The motel did not abide by the rulings of the Act and continued to refuse to provide service to Black Americans
3. Issue
3.1. The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent to Black Americans after the passage of the Act and was charged with violating the Act in 1964
4. Rules of law
4.1. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Commerce Clause, § 201 (a), § 201 (b), § 201 (c), § 201 (d), § 202, § 203, § 206 (a)
5. Application
5.1. Congress charged Heart of Atlanta motel with violation of the Civil Rights Act, Title II
5.2. The appellant argued that "the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because appellant 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; and, finally, that by requiring appellant to rent available rooms to Negroes against its will, Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment"
5.2.1. At the courts, the appellant offered no evidence or support for the facts under which the Act was intentionally violated
5.3. Congress considered this violation of Title II a moral problem
5.3.1. Court held that the fact regulation affecting economic growth or success has never been a barrier to legislation; it is noted doubtful that the Act would hinder economic profit for the Heart of Atlanta Motel
5.4. Congress found no merit in the appellant opinion that the Act was "involuntary servitude."
5.4.1. The motel argued that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment by requiring that they serve Black Americans. However, it was ruled that Congress enacted laws that are required to regulate/protect interstate commerce is "nullified by the negative constitutional commands that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
6. Conclusion
6.1. The court ruled that Congress has right under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
6.2. The Court concluded that public places in the US had no legal right to deny or select guests/ patrons under the basis of discriminatory practices and free of government regulations and laws
7. Importance
7.1. This decision ruled in favor of the Congress upholding the provisions of the Act. This protects the US individuals from discrimination based on race, color, or ethical origin
7.1.1. The outcome of this case protects individuals but also upholds the basis of the amendments, and explains how the Act works in conjunction with the existing laws