Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - 1964

Facts of the case

Bibliography

Majority decision of the Court

• It happened from 1960-1969
• Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said there couldn't be racial descrimination in public places if their operations affected commerce
• Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia
• The motel didn't accept African Americans
• And was charged with violating Title 2
• Congress had outlawed discrimination in public accommadations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• The owner was Moreton Rolleston, Jr., a staunch segregationist
• Rolleston sued, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated his rights as a private businessman because it outlawed discrimination in privately owned places

By: Natalie Richards & Radji Mayanan

• "HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S." Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. Oyez, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
• "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
• "Key Supreme Court Cases: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (ABA Division for Public Education)." Key Supreme Court Cases: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (ABA Division for Public Education). Student Central, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
• "Heart of Atlanta Motel." Www.todayingeorgiahistory.org/. N.p., 05 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.

5th period

• 9 votes for US
• 0 votes against
• Said the Commerce Clause let Congress regulate local incidents of commerce
• Said that places of public accommodation had no right to select guests they saw fit
• Justice Thomas Clark said African Americans often had to travel longer distances or call on friends; they were discriminated against by hotels and motels
• Interstate Commerce Act said Congress may prohibit racial discrimination by motels
• The decision was unanimous

Does this case remain relevant or has it been superseded by another case?

Relief sought

• Plaintiff: US government
• Defendant: The Heart of Atlanta Motel
• US government accused motel of racial discrimination
• The Government wanted the motel to allow people of different race, gender, religion, national origin, and political views to stay there
• The plaintiff wanted fairness among all people and motel guests

• This case doesn't really remain relevant anymore, because these racist issues happened a while ago in the 1960's
• We still have some racist issues today, but none really like this one
• The issue of motels being racist is not really relevant anymore, because that issue was resolved and doesn't happen anymore
• Other racial issues today deal with people being racist sometimes to one another, not so much in public places such as motels

Importance of this case

Dissenting opinion(s)

• The case affected future cases and Civil Rights, because it was the first issue about whether or not Congress could pass laws about racial discrimination in public places
• It talked about whether motels could be racist to its guests
• It changed it so that motels couldn't discriminate
• it dismantled segregation across the South

There was no dissenting opinion in this case, because all 9 Supreme Court Justices voted for the US and none voted against, or in dissent. The decision was unanimous.

What we think

• We agree with the Supreme Court's decision because it's not fair to discriminate against people and to deny them their rights
• In this case, the Heart of Atlanta Motel was keeping the African Americans from staying at the motel which was crucial because there were many people on the go and needed a place to stay for the night
• It wasn't right of the motel to treat the African Americans this way, and it shouldn't be overlooked