Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
IRAC Tirad by Mind Map: IRAC Tirad

1. Step 1

1.1. The owner of heart of Atlanta owner Moreton Rolleston refused to rent rooms to African Americans guests.

2. Step 2

2.1. The private business was challenging that federal government doesn't have rights to enforce private owner to not discriminate.

2.2. private owner was also challenging that Civil Law of 1964 can't be enforced as it would violate involuntary servitude

3. Step 3

3.1. The interstate movement of persons is "commerce" which concerns more than one State. Pp. 379 U. S. 255-256. (b) The protection of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether or not the transportation of persons between States is "commercial." P. 379 U. S. 256. (c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress was also legislating against what it considered to be moral wrongs. P. 379 U. S. 257. (d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 379 U. S. 258.

3.2. In order for this to be considered involuntary servitude following has to be true: First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude'; Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.

4. Step 4

4.1. Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation serving interstate travelers - which is valid for this case.

4.2. Prohibiting racial discrimination in public does not violate the fifth.

4.3. Congress enforcing the civil law of 1964 is not violate involuntary servitude.

5. SECOND STEP: IN IRAC FORMAT

5.1. Issue

5.1.1. The owner of heart of Atlanta is challenging that congress doesn't have right to enforce civil law of 1964 to private business owner. Owner is also claiming that congress enforcing civil law of 1964 is in violation of involuntary servitude.

5.2. Rule

5.2.1. (b) The protection of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether or not the transportation of persons between States is "commercial." P. 379 U. S. 256. (c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress was also legislating against what it considered to be moral wrongs. P. 379 U. S. 257. (d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 379 U. S. 258.

5.3. Analysis

5.3.1. hotel is located in the area where lot of interstate guests were coming so more then one state was involved. In this case, racially discriminating is very much violation of moral code for rule c.

5.4. Conclusion

5.4.1. Per the analysis it is evident that enforcing civil law of 1964 is fully in withing power of congress under the commerce clause applied in public accommodation for interstate travelers.

5.4.2. Enforcing the civil law of 1964 does not violate the involuntary servitude b/c all of the following would have to be true in order to be otherwise: First: That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude'; Second: That such holding was for a 'term,'; and Third: That the person acted knowingly and willfully.