1. 1. Facts
1.1. Parties
1.1.1. Appellant: Heart of Atlanta Motel
1.1.2. United States
1.2. What Happened
1.2.1. A motel operator was found to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act by refusing to provide accommodations to an African American
1.2.2. Defendant argued that the act was unconstitutional by regulating commerce
1.2.3. Hotel argued it was "of a purely local character" and thus was not participating in interstate commerce therefore the Commerce Clause did not apply to them
1.2.4. Hotel did have close access to interstate highways and 75% of patrons were from out of state
1.2.5. Owner also advertised nationally
1.3. Procedural History
1.3.1. District court: Act is not unconstitutional and owner cannot discriminate on the basis of race
1.3.2. Appealed and was reviewed by Supreme Court
2. 7. Importance
2.1. This case upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act to prevent discriminatory practices.
2.2. Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Motel the landscape of racial discrimination would be much different now. Businesses could potentially still have the ability to refuse service/goods to a person due to their race.
3. 8. Influence
3.1. Hotels
3.1.1. Hotels cannot discriminate based on race (and other factors listed in the act)
3.2. Restaurants
3.2.1. Restaurants cannot refuse service to anyone based on the protected categories listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964
4. 2. Issue
4.1. Does Congress have Constitutional authority to regulate racial discrimination with regards to interstate commerce?
5. 3. Rule of Law
5.1. A business participating in interstate commerce cannot discriminate on the basis of race as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
6. 4. Application/Analysis
6.1. U.S
6.1.1. .: Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce to protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of race.
6.1.2. The motel was clearly in business of interstate commerce due to its access to interstate highways, national advertising, and high percentage of out-of-state clients
6.2. Heart of Atlanta Hotel
6.2.1. Hotel is not involved in interstate commerce and is "of a local character"
6.2.2. Congress overstepped its authority by enacting the statute to regulate commerce
6.3. Court
6.3.1. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was constitutional
6.3.2. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce and prevent discriminatory practices
7. 5. Conclusion
7.1. The court ruled that Congress does have the ability to regulate commerce and thus can make rulings to prevent activities that may have a harmful effect upon the commerce. That includes preventing discrimination based on race
8. 6. Impact
8.1. U.S. vs Lopez
8.1.1. 12th grade student brought gun on school campus
8.1.2. Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. was cited as other case when court regulated "interstate commerce"
8.2. U.S. vs Marignon
8.2.1. Marignon charged w/ bootlegging recordings of live performances
8.2.2. Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. was again cited as a way the court can regulate interstate commerce