Summary Of Heart Of Atlanta Motel V. United States

The Supreme Court case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, is a lesser known court case among Americans, although it holds vital significance. This case was during the Civil Rights Era where African Americans were trying to obtain rights through boycotts and protests. Civil Rights is the protection of individuals from organizations and private individuals, including businesses. This where Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States plays a role with civil rights. In this case a private hotel was discriminating against African Americans. So Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was a crucial court case that ended segregation in businesses all across America. Unlike Brown v. Board of Edu. this only ended segregation in schools which came before

Mr. Rolleston has 216 rooms in his motel and was denying even the open rooms to blacks (McClain, 2012). The court case was first argued at the state level in October 5, 1964 (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 1964). Rolleston appealed all the way to the to the supreme court in December 14, 1964, saying that this violated his 5th and 13th amendment (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 1964). Moreton Rolleston’s main argument was that as a business owner he can run his business how he sees fit and the government cannot regulate this type of business practice (McClain, 2012). A crucial fact about the case is that over three fourths of the customers were residents outside the State of Georgia (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 1964). This will prove its importance because out of state consumers staying in the motel might be interstate commerce. Rolleston stated his opinion that the Commerce Clause had no jurisdiction to him and his business when choosing customers as a part of his argument (McClain, 2012). Another factor that should be included into the background of this case was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was past before this dispute

Justice Black. His ruling on the case was in favor of the United States but for a different reason. Mr. Justice Black stated “The most immediately relevant parts of Title II of the Act, which, if valid, subject this motel and this restaurant to its requirements are set out below.” meaning the Civil Rights Act is relevant instead of the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 2017). The second concurring opinion was from Mr. Justice Douglass where he concluded that that this can not be solely on Commerce Clause like in Edwards v California (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 2017). The final concurring opinion was from Mr. Justice Goldberg. Justice Goldberg states that the Civil Rights Act has the intention of fixing the problems like Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States and “not mere economics” (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States,