1. Four classes of business establishments, each of which "serves the public" and "is a place of public accommodation" within the meaning of § 201 (a) "if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action." The covered establishments are:
1.1. "(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; "(2) any restaurant, cafeteria . . . [not here involved]; "(3) any motion picture house . . . [not here involved]; "(4) any establishment . . . which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or . . . within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment . . . [not here involved]."
2. Respondent waived his right to a jury trial. The District Court conducted a bench trial, found him guilty of violating the law and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.
3. Parties
3.1. Appellant
3.1.1. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc
3.2. Appellee
3.2.1. United States of America
4. Issue
4.1. Does the State District Court have the power to enforce judgement under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deny the Motel the right to choose its clientele based on Race.
5. Rule of Law
5.1. Civil Rights Act of 1964
5.1.1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides:
5.1.1.1. "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
5.1.1.1.1. In addition, § 202 affirmatively declares that all persons "shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof."
5.1.1.2. Analysis/Application
5.1.1.2.1. Appellee
5.1.1.2.2. Defendent
5.1.1.2.3. Court
5.1.1.3. A person aggrieved may bring suit, in which the Attorney General may be permitted to intervene.
5.1.1.4. Remedies are limited to civil actions for preventive relief.
5.2. Fifth Amendment
5.2.1. Guarantees of due process and of the right to refuse to answer questions in order to avoid incriminating oneself.
5.3. Thirteenth Amendment
5.3.1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Congress upheld that the District Court of Northern Georgia did not exceed its powers under the Commerce clause by enacting Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations.
7. Impact
7.1. United States v. Lopez No 93-1260 United States Supreme Court Argued November 8, 1994. Decided April 26, 1995
7.1.1. A federal grand jury indicted respondent on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Respondent moved to dismiss his federal indictment on the ground that it is unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The District Court denied the motion, concluding that it"is a constitutional exercise of Congress' well-defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the `business' of elementary, middle and high schools . . .affects interstate commerce."
7.1.1.1. First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce. Examples include the regulation of intrastate coal mining; Hotel, supra, intrastate extortionate credit transactions, McClung, supra, inns and hotels catering to interstate guests, Heart of Atlanta Motel
7.2. Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. et al. No. 645. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 1-2, 1968. Decided June 17, 1968.
7.2.1. In this case we are called upon to determine the scope and the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, 42 U.S. C. § 1982, which provides that: "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property."
7.2.1.1. The petitioners filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that the respondents had refused to sell them a home in the Paddock Woods community of St. Louis County for the sole reason that petitioner Joseph Lee Jones is a Negro. Relying in part upon § 1982, the petitioners sought injunction and other relief.
7.2.1.1.1. Whatever the present validity of the position taken by the majority on that issue a question rendered largely academic by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243 (see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 we note that the entire Court agreed upon at least one proposition: The Thirteenth Amendment authorizes Congress not only to outlaw all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude but also to eradicate the last vestiges and incidents of a society half slave and half free, by securing to all citizens, of every race and color, "the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to inherit, purchase, lease, sell and convey property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."
8. Influence
8.1. Business professional would care about this decision care about this decision because it would affect the way they would operate their business including:
8.1.1. Hiring practices such as discrimination in the workplace.
8.1.2. Fairness in the workplace and their need to provide equality among its workforce.
9. What Happened
9.1. The Appellant was discriminating in the renting of rooms to their clientele three-forth of whom were transient interstate travelers on the basis of race.
9.1.1. The Appellant sought review by the Supreme Court of a judgement United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for violating the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
9.1.2. The Appellant filled suit against the Appellee to challenge their ruling that enacting the statue that Congress was exceeding their power to regulate commerce
9.1.3. They contended that by enacting restriction on the motel that Congress exceeded its power and violated the Fifth and Thirteenth ammendment.
10. Procedural History
10.1. The Case was tried in the Northern District Court of Georgia in 1964. The court ruled against the Heart of Atlanta Motel for racially discriminating in public
10.1.1. The courts upheld that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was deemed constitutional
10.1.2. The Heart of Atlanta Hotel was ordered to refrain from acts of racial discrimination
10.2. The Heart of Atlanta Appealed the District Courts decision. The Supreme Court of the United States bypassed the 11th circuit and heard the case.
11. Importance
11.1. Heart of Atlanta Motel marked a turning point in Congress' efforts to promote civil rights through use of its power to regulate interstate commerce.
11.1.1. This has been a win for humanity and the way people treat and respect humans. It gave our nation the ability to begin to work with one another to grow stronger and more unified.