1. Facts
1.1. Parties
1.1.1. Plaintiff/ Appellent: Owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel
1.1.2. Defendant/ Appellee: United States Congress
1.2. What Occured
1.2.1. The Plaintiff sued for relief from the Title II Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1.2.2. The Plaintiff argued that Congress exceeded its authority in the Commerce Clause by forcing a whites-only public accommodation establishment to accept Blacks as customers
1.3. Procedural History
1.3.1. U.S. District Court of Appeals, Northern District of Georgia held that Congress was within its Constitutional right and did not violate the Commerce Clause. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was lawful.
1.3.1.1. The case was appealed and argued on October 5, 1964 before SCOTUS.
2. Issue
2.1. Legal Question Before the Court
2.1.1. Does Congress have the authority to regulate commerce for local businesses involved in interstate commerce?
3. Rule of Law
3.1. Legal Principles
3.1.1. Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce
3.1.2. Equality and anti-discrimination for all U.S. citizens, regardless of race.
3.2. Legal Precedents
3.2.1. 1948: Executive Order 9981
3.2.1.1. President Truman ended racial discrimination in the US armed forces.
3.2.2. 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS
3.2.3. 1957: Civil Rights Act of 1957
3.2.4. 1961: Monroe v. Pape
3.2.4.1. Allowed for lawsuits against those that violated civil rights
4. Analysis/ Application
4.1. Parties
4.1.1. Plaintiff
4.1.1.1. Heart of Atlanta Motel
4.1.2. Defendent
4.1.2.1. United States
4.1.3. Courts
4.1.3.1. Supreme Court of the United States
4.1.3.2. Decided December 14, 1964
4.1.3.3. Opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Clark
5. Conclusion
5.1. Congress was within its Constitutional right of Title II of the Civil Rights Act to apply the Commerce Clause.
5.2. Racial discrimination in public accommodations that engaged in interstate commerce violated the Civil Rights Act and Commerce Clause
6. Impact
6.1. As precedent for
6.1.1. Case 1
6.1.1.1. 1966: Executive Order 11375
6.1.1.1.1. Added sex discrimination to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
6.1.2. Case 2
6.1.2.1. 1972: Equal Opportunity Act
6.1.2.1.1. Amended the language of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow EEOC to sue local, state, and federal governments that violate civil rights.
6.1.3. Case 3
6.1.3.1. 2012: Affordable Act; individual insurance mandate
6.1.3.1.1. SCOTUS finds that mandating citizens to purchase individual insurance policies is not with Congress' power granted in the Commerce Clause. It is unconstitutional.
7. Importance
7.1. This case helped establish the length and breadth of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.
7.2. This case established that racial discrimination will not be tolerated. Racial discrimination in commerce is unconstitutional.
8. Influence
8.1. Business practices
8.1.1. Practice 1
8.1.1.1. Business owners cannot use racial discrimination when dealing in commerce.
8.1.2. Practice 2
8.1.2.1. Companies must provide diversity training and ethics training for its employees.