IRAC Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States

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

1. Facts

1.1. 1. Plaintiff - Heartland of Atlanta Motel

1.1.1. Heartland Motel did not want to rent rooms to African Americans

1.1.2. They believed Congress was in violation of exceeding constitutional authority of regulating commerce

1.2. 2. Defendant: Congress

1.2.1. Congress had ruled in the 1095's that no one could racially segregate- in 1964 this was extended to become the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2. Issue

2.1. Heartland of Atlanta Motel did not wish to rent its rooms to people of color and believed the US Supreme Court could not force them to do so as a violation of the Constitution

2.2. Federal Court/Congress believed Heartland of Atlanta Motel was in violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964

3. Rule

3.1. 1905's US Supreme Court ruled against racial segregation

3.2. Rule in this case specifically is the Civil Rights Act of 1964

4. Application

4.1. Plaintif believes the law is unconstitutional

4.2. Defendant believes the law should stand on its own merits

4.3. The Court ultimately upheld the law as it stood. They considered whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was constitutional and provided equal rights to all people regardless of race.

5. Conclusion

5.1. The US Supreme Court upheld this law

5.2. Congress was found to be able to regulate interstate commerce, such as the motel, and ensure that all people, regardless of color, are able to rent rooms if financially able to do so

6. Source: Cross, Frank B, & Miller, Rodger L. (2018) The Legal Environment of Business 10th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage. (Classic Case 4.1, page 71)