Module 2 case: Heart of Atlanta Motel vs United States

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Module 2 case: Heart of Atlanta Motel vs United States by Mind Map: Module 2 case: Heart of Atlanta Motel vs United States

1. Facts

1.1. Parties

1.1.1. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc

1.1.2. The United States Government

1.2. What Happened

1.2.1. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Heart of Atlanta Motel, Atlanta, GA refused to rent rooms to black partons.

1.3. Procedural history

1.3.1. The Heart of Atlanta Hotel filed suit in Federal court, arguing that the Civil Rights Act requirements exceeded the authority granted to congress over interstate commerce and that the Act violated the fifth amendment rights to choose customers.

2. Issue

2.1. Whether the Civil Rights Act violates the constitution

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Civil Right act of 1964

3.1.1. Section 201(a) states that all people are entitled to accomodations of any place of public accomodation without discrimination as to color

3.1.2. Section 201(b)(1) defines a motel as a covered establishment if its operations affect commerce.

3.1.3. Section 201 (c) declare that any motel providing loddgint o transient guests affects commerce per se

3.2. Commerce Clause

3.2.1. Allows congress to regulate commerce among the several states

4. Analysis/Application

4.1. Plaintiff

4.1.1. The requirements of the Civil Rights Act exceed the authority granted to congress over interstate commerce

4.1.2. The Civil Rights Act violated the Fifth Amendment rights to chose customers

4.1.3. By being force to rent available rooms , the plaintiff is placed in a position of involuntary servitude which constitutes a violation to the Thirteenth Amendment

4.2. Defendant

4.2.1. Restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for black Americans are unquestionably related to interstate travel

4.2.2. The Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause has the power to address interstate travel

4.2.3. The Fifth Amendment does not forbid reasonable regulation of interstate commerce

4.2.4. The Thirteenth Amendment applies primarily to slavery and does no place issues of racial discrimination in public accommodations beyond the reach of the Federal and state law

4.3. Court

4.3.1. Ruled in favor of the United States

4.3.2. Issued a permanent injunction, requiring the Heart of Atlanta motel Inc to refrain form the use of racial discrimination.

5. Conclusion

5.1. Congress appropriatlye passed the challenged provisions of the Civil rights Act under its authority granted by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

5.2. Heart of Atlanta Motel had to comply with Civil Rights Act

6. Impact

6.1. Cited numerous times

6.1.1. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995): Regulation of Fun Free Zones: Supreme Court overtunred defendant's conviction for possessing gun in schol zone. The court held that Congress exceeded its authority because the activity to be regulated was not connected with a commercial transaction

6.1.2. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598,120 S. Ct. 1740, 146 L. Ed. 2d 658 (2000): Supreme Court stuck down the civil remedy portion of the Violence Against Women Act saying that the congress exceeded its authority and that congress may not regulate non-economic violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce

6.1.3. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S. Ct. 2195, 162 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005): Congress was within its authority to ban marijuana because it is an economic activity

7. Importance

7.1. This ruling affected the healthcare field, The supreme court stripped out some of the elements of the ACA, the court held that the congress exceed its authority under the commerce Clause.

8. Influence

8.1. This case was a landmark in the fight against racism. the supreme court concluded that the congress could have used other means of abolishing slavery but the was that it was done was perfectly valid.

8.1.1. Among the businesses affected, hotels had to offer rooms to customers regardless of their race

8.1.2. Restaurants where also affected and had to offer meals to customers regardless of their race