Analysis Of The Katzenbach Vs. Mcclung Case

The commerce clause refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution, which gives congress enumerated power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among several states, and with the Indian tribes”. The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power. The Katzenbach vs. McClung case is an example of congress using the commerce clause to enact title II of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The case was about a highway restaurant that was operated in Birmingham, Alabama with a capacity of 220 seats. The restaurant

The Katzenbach vs McClung case took place in a restaurant that gets 46% of its food, which was meat from a local supplier that acquired it from outside the state. In addition, the substantial amount of food brought from outside the state will affect the state’s meat industry. Thus, it’s considered interstate commerce, which was mentioned in the U.S. constitution giving congress authority and jurisdiction to regulate the conduct. The other case of Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S. had also an affect on interstate commerce. The motel was located on interstates 75 and 85, which is considered a strategic position. The interstate movement and traveling is considered commerce of more than one state, thus, making it interstate commerce. In fact, The Passenger case settled the argument of traveling being interstate commerce as Mr. Justice McLean stated “That the transportation of passengers is a part of commerce is not now an open question”. Therefore, discriminating against African American will affect interstate commerce, which is considered the congress’s authority under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court used the commerce clause of the constitution to come to their verdict towards both cases. However, the Katzenbach vs McClung case could have had another verdict for many reasons. First, unlike Heart of Atlanta Motel the restaurant served African Americans, which means they are getting the same food but without dining. Therefore, interstate commerce wouldn’t have any affect if African Americans dined or took the food out. Second, the owner could have started obtaining all of his need within the state, thus making him affecting intrastate commerce, which the congress don’t have authority on.