Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States
5
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
By: Jay & Paige
Case History
A big thing to look at when studying a case is the history, everything that happened leading up to the case, and seeing what makes this case a big deal.
Case History
The Motel
The Heart of Atlanta Motel was claimed as one of the finest hotels between New York and Miami. It opened September 5th, 1956, and was replaced in 1976. Although the motel advieristled in state, the adversiments were on highways frequently used by out of state travelers. Therefore, it regularly caters to out of state guests. Unfortunatly, the owner of the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons.
The Motel
Civil Rights Act
This case took place right at the peak of the civil rights movement in 1964. In 1964, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act the prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
This act gave people of color the right to vote, gave them public education, public accomodations, and equal employment oportunity.
The civil rights act was passed just 20 days before this trial took place.
The civil rights act is extreamly important to look at because in this case, Heart of Atlanta Motel is going against the civil rights act, by discriminating against people of color and not allowing them to stay at their hotel.
What happened?
Before the Heart of Atlanta filed suit against the United States, the General Attourny and fedral governemnt began to examine the motel for the violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This sparked the Heart of Atlanta to file suit for a invalid in jurisdiciton.
What happened
Plantiff &
Defendant
Plaintif & Defendant
Plantiff
The Plantiff is the Heart of Altanta Motel
trying to recieve a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent the General Attorney of the United States from exercising powers pertaining to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The plantiff argues Congress violated its power under the Commerce Clause. The plantiff argues that its bussiness is intrastate therefore not under the jursidiction of fedral powers.
Defendant
The defendant is the General Attorney of the United States, during the time of the case Robert F. Kennedy held the positon. He is defending the United States and the fedral power granted under the Civil RIghts Act of 1964 and arguing the motel is not complying with the act. He is also arguing that the United States is not violating its power pertraing to the Commerce Cluase and utlizies several past court decsions to support its claim. Overall the defendant argues that it effects persons out of state and therefore becomes an issue under its jursidiction.
Laws in Conflict
To fully understand the case, it is important to know the laws behind the case that are referenced to come to a just decision.
Laws in Conflict
Constitutional Law
Civil rights act:
The civil rights act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin
Consitutional Law
It is important to consider the contitional law applied in the case, because it allows us to understand the base of what is accepted and what is neccesary to uphold the constitution in a case.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides:
"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power * * * Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" and Clause 18 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers * * *."
Summary: Congress has the power to make laws when neccesary to solve an issue
Past Court Cases
United States v. Darby
Wickard v. Filburn
Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board
OTHERS:
Hotel Employees Local No. 255, etc. v. Leedom
N.L.R.B. v. Citizens Hotel Co
National Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp
Past Court Cases
United States v. Darby
The court concluded:
"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the grant of power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."
United States v Darby
Impact:
The conclusion supports the defendant The Motel argues that the Fedral Court does not have power since the commerce is intrastate, however this case extends the power of Congress to make regulation of intreastate commerce when it effects interstate commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn
"That activities such as those of Reliance affect commerce and are within the constitutional reach of Congress is beyond doubt."
Impact:
The impact of these cases supports the defendant because it validates Cingress's juridiction over The Heart of Atlanta Motel. Ulimatly warrenting them to question the violatio of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Polish Nat. Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board
Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board &Wickard v. Filburn
"Congress has explicitly regulated not merely transactions or goods in interstate commerce but activities which in isolation might be deemed to be merely local but in the interlacings of business across state lines adversely affect such commerce."
Created from this case
It is important to consider the laws made from this case to see the impact this case had, and to see what was being changed to prevent this in the future.
Created from this case
(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 resident;
[1] Sec. 201. (a) 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, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Court Decision
Court Decision
The courts judgement is to the United States. The courts decision concludes that the Heart of Atlanta did not comply with the Civil RIghts Act of 64' and the fedral governement does have personal jurisdiction.
OUR OPINON:
We agree with the court decsion.